







;* <^0 



^^-^^^ 



■-^U;^ ^' :4^^^. '^^. .& ' »: 



fr,* ^ N* ". 











^°-V. 




'" •*© V* 



.•iq* 



ip-n. 



«.' -^ '^<::^^^m:^y ^ <*v 













V3. *'T.s^ A 






-^^ '» . » 




^oV 



^-'^* 








^. *'v:*«* 






4 o 





°o 















.4 q. 





A 

CONTINUATION 

OF 

LETTERS 

CONCERNING THE 

CONSTITUTION AND ORDEIi 

OF THE 

CHRISTIAN MINISTRY^ 

ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF 

THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES 

IN THE 

CITY OF NEW-YORK. 

BEING AN EXAMINATION OF THE STRICTURES OF THE 

REV. DRS. BOWDEN AND KEMP, AND THE REV. 

MR. HOW, ON fHE FORMER SERIES. 



BY SAMUEL MILLER, D. D. 

H 
ONE OF THE PASTOKS OF THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN 

CHURCH IN THE SAID CITY. 



J\rEW-YORK: 
PUBLISHED BY WILLIAMS AND WHITING, 

AT THEIR THEOLOGICAL AND CLASSICAL BOOK-STORE^? 

No. 118, Pearl-Street, 

T. SEYMOUR, PRINTER. 

18<)9. 



:bv4<^ 






U*^ 



036 



District of JstcHii-Torky aa. 

~>E it remembered, that on the fifth day of Decembei:^ 
in the thirty-fourth year of the Independence of the 
United States of America, Williams {y Whiting, of the 
said district, have deposited in this Office the title of a 
Book, the right whereof they claim as Proprietors, in the 
words following", to wit : 

•* A Contimiation of Letters concerning the Constitution and Or* 
der of the Christian Ministry; addressed to the Members of 
the Presbyterian Churches in the city of N'ew-Tork, Being an 
exaviination of the strictures of the Pev. Drs. Bonjoden and 
Kempy and the Rev. Mr. How, on the former series. By 
Samuel Miller ^ D. D. one of the Pastors of the First Pres- 
byterian Church in the said CityP 

In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, 
entitled, ** An act for the encouragement of learning by se- 
" curing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the au- 
" thors and proprietors of such copies during the time there* 
** in mentioned ; and also to an Act, entitled an Act, supple- 
** mentary to an Act, entitled an Act for the encouragement 
** of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and 
'' books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, du- 
*' ring the time therein mentioned, and extending the benefits 
^ thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching, 
^^ historical and other prints." 

CHARLES CLINTON, 

Clerk of the District of Nens-York^ 



-"'"^^f,^ 



899 



CON T £ N T S. 



LETTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY remarks— Origin of this di^- 
fmte — Diligence and zeal of our Ejiiscopal brethren in 
asserting their offensive claims — Design end character 
of the author^ s former series of Letter s^^ Attacks made 
ufion those Letters — The avowed opinions of Dr. Bonx)" 
den and Mr, How — Various unfounded charges brought 
by these gentlemen agai?ist the author's former volume — • 
Specimen of their indece?it languagC'^Design of the 
following sheets. ^, 13 — 35. 

LETTER IL 

Dr, Boivden and Mr. How charge the author with 
misrepresenting their doctrine — This charge show?i to 
be unfounded — They assert that Presbyterians advance 
xlaims as highy and as offensive as theirs^^This asser^ 
Hon refuted by specif c quotations f^om our Confession 
cf Faith y and Form of Government — Presbyterians re^ 
ceive miiiisters from other denominations of Christians 
without re-ordaining them — The doctrine of the jure di- 
vino Presbyterians briefly stated — This doctrine shown 
to be much less high-toned and offensive than that of Dr. 
Bowden and Mr, How — The doctrine of uncovenantecl 
mercy y as held by these gentlemen — This doctrine unjust- 
ly imputed to Presbyterians — Unscriptural and crude 
notions concerning Baptism erroneously ascribed to the 
Presbyterian Church^^A similar slander with regard., to 



iV CONTENTS. 

the doctrine of Election — Mr, How rnisrepreaents and 
abuses a clause in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith 
— Virtually vilifies an article of his own Church — Cer- 
tain facts stated in the former volume^ concerning Eng' 
lish Efliscojialians^ denied — Proved to be true — Charge 
of illiberality against the author — Refuted — The claim 
of high'churchmen construed by impartial judges-^ and 
even by Efdscofial writers^ as we construe it-^Charge 
against the author of defiarting from his own Confession 
of Faith-^Denied — Conclusion, p. 36 — 73, 

LETTER HI. 

Scrifiture the only rule of faith and fir ac tic e — Dr, 
Bowden declines being judged by Scripture alone-^Be- 
gins with the testimony of the Fathers — Even this testi" 
viony he is afraid to encounter in its natural order — 
Singular management to make it appear more favourable 
^0 his cause than it is — Argument drawn from, the Asia* 
'Ic Angels reviewed — Shown to make nothing in favour 
rf Prelacy — Blondel misrepr e sent ed^^His real opinion 
stated — -The argument founded on the mission of TimO'- 
'hy and Titus again examined — The argument drawn 
from the Constitution of the Jewish Synagogue reviewed 
and defended'—^Quotations from Episcopal writers in 
<.upport of that argument — Argument drawn from the 
alleged Episcopal character of James ^ examined and re- 
futed — Calvin unjustly produced as a witness in favour 
uf this argument — Calvin grossly misrepresented in an* 
other instance— ^Dr, Bowden denies that the genuine- 
ness and authenticity of the Scriptures can be decided 
Tjithout the Fathers-— -Contradicts the doctrine of our 
Churchy and of his own^ p. 74 — 117. 



CONTENTS. V 

LETTER IV. 

Testimony in favour of the office of Ruling Elder move 
fiarticularly considered — This^ or some similar office^ 
necessary in the Church^-^There were Ruling Elders i7i 
ihe Jewish Synagogue — They are exfiressly mentioned 
in the JVew Testament — Testimony in favour of this 
office from the Fathers — The Waldenses^ the Bohemian 
brethren^ and the Hussites^ had Ruling Elders in their 
Churches before Calvin was born — Testimony of th^ 
Reformers — Martin Bucer — -Peter Martyr — Confess 
sion of Saxony-^^Acknowledgment of Archbishofi Whit* 

gift Szegedin — Kromayer — Voetius — Ur sinus — Thi^ 

office adopted by tke great body of the Reformed Church^, 
rts — Objections against it-^jinswered, p. 118— 14f. 

LETTER V. 

Testimony of the Fathers reviewed^—The author*s 
former protest and explanations on this subject disrc" 
garded by Dr, Bowden — Charge of suppressing testimo^^ 
ny from the Fathers unfounded^-^Charge of misrepre* 
senting the testimony of other Fathers equally unfounded 
^'^The Fathers of the third and fourth centuries ought 
not to be credited^ even if they had asserted the apostolic 
cal institution of Prelacy — But they do not assert it~^ 
The number of Bishops^ in early times'^ a strong argu- 
ment against Prelacy — The relation of Bishops to par ^ 
ticular fiocks equally conclusive against the diocesan 
scheme — Additional testimony from the Fathers — Hila- 
ry — Chrysostom — Basil — Fourth Council of Carthage 
— Apostolical Constitutions — Sixth general Council of 
Constantinople — Council of Aix la Chapelle — Duties of 
the primitive Bishop show that he was not a diocesans 



Vi CONTENTS. 

But a fiarochial Bishofi — Recafiitulatmn o^ testiirwmi 
from the Fathers, p. 148 — 216. 

LETTER VL 

Testimony of the Reformers — Further fir oof that the^ 
Waldenses were Presbyterians — Additional testimony 
also that the Bohemian brethren embraced the doctrine 
if ministerial parity- — The attempts of Dr, Bowdcn and 
Mr. Hoix) to show that the English Reformers were be^ 
llevers in the divine right of Prelacy^ examined and 
shown to be insufficient — Dr, Bowden refiresents the 
Jirst reformation in Scotland^ under Knox^ as prelatical 
in its character — This representation shown to be an er- 
Toneous one^-^Testimony of the Reformers on the conti* 
nent of Europe-^^Luther — Augustan Confession — De^ 
fence of the Augustan Confession — Sfnalkald Articles^^ 
Syllabus of controverted Points^-^Confession of Saxony 
•-^Confession of Witemberg — French Confession — Bel' 
gic Confession^'Second Helvetic Confession-^^Con-^ession 
ibf Bohemia--^ Ursinus-^Musculus' — ^Szegedin-^^ Junius-^ 
Sadeel — Crakenthorp — Further proof that the Churches 
xf Sweden and Denmark are noty and never wercy Epis^ 
Qopaly in Dr, Bowden^s sense of the word — Recapitulaa 
Hon. p. 217 — 277. 

LETTER VIL 

Testimony of Calvin — Extraordinary pains taken by 
7nodern high'churchmen to abuse and blacken the charac^ 
ter of this Reformei'-^-Presbyterianism established vi 
Geneva before Calvin ever saw that city — This Refor^^ 
mer alleged to have becn^ in the early part of his Ife^ 



CONTENTS. Vli 

^favourable to Prelacy"-^ Demonstration that this was not 
the case — Particular quotations from Calvin's Institutes 
and Commentary to show that he was a uniform believ" 
er in the apostolic institution of Presbyterianism — Pas^ 
sages from Calvin*s writings alleged to be favourable to 
Prelacy^ shown to be of a directly opposite character^'-' 
The assertion^ that Calvin was never ordained^ refuted 
^^The high honour in winch he was held by Archbishop 
Cranmer^ and the other English Reformers — His influ^ 
ence over those Reformers — The prevalence of his opin^ 
ionsj at an early period^ in the Church of England^^^ 
Testimonies in favour of Calvin by eminent Episcopal 
^vriters-^^The personal character of Calvin vindicated-^^ 
His conduct in the cases of Castalio^ Perrin^ Gruety Pol' 
»ec, and Servetusy set in a true light~^Dr, Bowden and 
Mr, How throw out many reflections against Calvinism 
— In doing this^ they oppose the thirty'nine Articles of 
their own Churchy and many of the most eminent Re* 

, formers of that Churchy as well as the Scriptures-'^The 
difficulties of Calvinism — Still greater difficulties in Ar^ 
minianism — Consequences of rejecting the former^ and 
embracing the latter, p. 278 — 340. 

LETTER VIII, 

Testimony of the Successors of the Reformer s-^-^Le 

Blanc — Chamier — Danau^^Bo chart Claude — Daille 

— Balduiri''^ Diet eric h — Hulsemann — Gerhard Pud^ 

daus'^The Synod of Dort^-^Mr. How's astonishing 
misconceptions and misrepresentations of that Synod-^ 
Its testimony shown to be strongly in favour of Presby- 
terian parity'*^Testimony of some distinguished members 
of that Synod in their private capacity^^^Gomarics'-^ 



via CONTENTS. 

Polyander''^ThysiuS'^WalieuS''^Remark8, p. 34 1-— 
381. 

LETTER IX. 

Rise and Progress of Prelacy^^Prelacxj introduced^ 
not suddenly^ but by little and littU'-^Dr, Bowden 
proved to be incorrect in his estimate of the great purity 
of the clergy during the first three centuries^^Quota'm 
tionsfrom the Fathers to prove this — Her mas — Hegis' 
sippus'-^Cyprian-^'Origen' — Eusebius-^^Proof not only 
that clerical ambition existed^ but that there were ob'* 
vious temptations to it in those early times'-^Dr, Bow" 
den misrepresents Blondel^ with respect to his opinion^ 
as to the period at which Prelacy arose — Probably mis* 
represents Salmasius^ Chamier<f and Du Moulin in the 
same manner — The early community of the titles of Bi- 
shop and Presbyter shown to be a strong argument in 
favour of the apostolic institution, of parity, p. 382— 
415. 

LETTER X. 

The subject of Episcopal concessions cursonly review- 
ed — Dr. Bowden^s and Mr, How^s mode of treating 
witnesses and testiinony — Further remarks on the praC' 
tical influence of Prelacy — Uninterrupted successions^ 
Concluding observations, p. 416 — 434. 



LETTERS, Sfc. 



LETTER L 



LVTROD UCTOR Y REMARKS. 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

It is more than two years since I addressed you 
in a series of *' Letters on the Constitution and Or- 
der of the Christian Ministry, as deduced from 
Scripture and Primitive Usage." The resolution 
to call your attention to that subject was reluctantly 
formed, after much deliberation, and in compliance 
with what appeared to me an evident and imperi- 
ous demand of duty, A love of controversy makes no 
part of my character. Neither ray taste nor my talents 
are by any means suited to the field of contention. 
Bat when a minister of the gospel perceives any 
thing which is likely to have an unfriendly intiu- 
ence en the church of Christ, to which he has so- 
lemnly devoted himself, every consideration of 

B 



14 LETTER !• 

faithfulness forbids him to be idle. Such influence 
I saw, or thought I saw, was likely to result from 
certain publications, and other efforts, which had 
been made by some respectable individuals among 
our Episcopal brethren, in this city, and in different 
parts of the state, for several years preceding. The 
nature and tendency of these efforts are well under- 
stood by many of you, but they ought to be under^ 
stood by all. 

For more than twenty years after the establish- 
ment of American independence, the Presbyterians 
of New-York dwelt in peace and harmony with 
their Episcopal neighbours. They well recollected, 
indeed, the long course of oppressions and provo- 
cations which they had suffered, by means of Epis- 
copal influence, prior to the Revolution. They re- 
collected that, for more than half a century, be- 
sides supporting their own churches, they had been 
forced to contribute to the support of the Episco- 
pal church, already enriched and strengthened by- 
governmental aid. They recollected in how many 
instances the fairest and most laudable exertions 
to promote the interest of their denomination, were 
oppgsed, thwarted, and frustrated, by the direct 
interference of the same favoured sect. But when 
our national independence and equal rights be- 
came established ; when all denominations of 
Christians were placed on the same footing, with 
respect to the state, and left to enjoy their privile- 
ges together, the Presbyterians were disposed to 
forget every injury ; to cover every former subject 



Introductoi'y Remarks. 15 

©f uneasiness with the mantle of charity ; to dwell 
in equal concord and love with their brethren of 
every name. It was not supposed, indeed, during 
tb.s period of tranquilliti , that Presbyterians and 
Episcopalians were agreed in their views either 
of evangelical truth, or of ecclesiastical order ; or 
that they considered all the points in which they 
differed as of small importance. But while both 
thought for themselves, and pursued their own 
views of doctrine and worship, they avoided an w;2- 
necesmry^ and especially, an irritating and offensive 
obtrusion of their points of difference ; and, above 
all, never seem to have thought, on either side, of 
that system of proscription and attack, which our 
Episcopal brethren have since chosen to commence. 
The formal and open commencement of this sys- 
tem may be dated in the year 1804. Previous to 
that period, indeed, several sermons, and other fu- 
gitive pamphlets, had evinced a disposition on the 
part of some individuals, to revive and urge certain 
claims, as unfounded in scripture as they are offen- 
sive to liberal minds. But in that year there ap- 
peared, in the city of New York, the first of a se- 
ries of larger publications, which evidently had for 
their object a system of more bold and decisive pro- 
scription than had been ventured upon for a consi- 
derable time before. These publications, among 
other doctrines, were professedly intended to 
maintain and disseminate the following, viz. 
" That the power of ordination to the Christian 
" ministry is, by divine appointment, vested ex- 



16 iETTiPR I, 

" clusively in Diocesan Bishops ; that where these 
'' Bishops are wanting, there is no authorized mi* 
*' nistry, no true church, no valid ordinances ; that, 
^' of course, the Presbyterian, and all other non- 
" Episcopal churches, and ministers, are not only 
^' unauthorized, and perfectly destitute of validity, 
*' but are to be viewed as institutions founded in re- 
*' beliion and schism ; and that all who are in com- 
*' munion with such non- Episcopal churches, are 
'^ aliens from Christ," " out of the appointed road 
" to heaven," have no interest in the promises of 
" God, and no hope but in his '*• uncovenanted 
*^ mercy," which may be extended to them, in 
" common with the serious and conscientious hea- 
^' then." Books containing doctrines of this kind, 
had been published and sent abroad with much as- 
siduity, for more than a ycar^ before any Presbyte- 
rian came forward to refute them, or to vindicate 
primitive simplicity and order ; and since that 
time, similar books have been printed, re-printed, 
new modelled, and circulated, especially in thecity 
and state of New- York, with a degree of zeal and 
perseverance altogether new and extraordinary. 

Nor is this all. These books have been put in- 
to the hands of non- Episcopalians. Presbyterians 
have been personally addressed on the subject, and 
attempts made to seduce them from their church, 
on the express allegation that they were totally des* 
titute of an authorized ministry, and of valid ordi- 
nances. And, that nothing might be wanting to fix 
the character and purpose of these measures, they 



Introductf}ry Remarks. 17 

were accompanied with declarations, that a state of 
warfare with the Presbyterian church, on the sub- 
ject of Episcopacy, was earnestly wished for, and 
considered as one of the most probable means of 
promoting the Episcopal cause. 

It was not possible for one denomination of Chris- 
tians to act in a more inoffensive manner towards 
another, than we had uniformly done towards our 
Episcopal brethren. Wc had never attempted to un- 
church them. We had never, directly or indirectly, 
called in question the validity of their ministrations 
or ordinances. We had never, on any occasion, ob- 
truded our particular views of church order, as es- 
sential either to the being or prosperity of the body 
of Christ. On the contrary, whenever w« had occa- 
sion, from the pulpit or the press, to instruct our 
people on those points in which we differ from Epis- 
copalians, it was always done in a mani^er respectful 
and conciliatory, and perfectly consistent with ac- 
knowledging them as a sister church ; a sister, by no 
means indeed, in our estimation, free from error ; 
but yet sufficiently near the primitive model to be 
regarded as a church of Christ. Ail this, however, 
did not secure us from the treatment of which you 
have heard. 

Under these circumstances, when we were virtu- 
ally denounced and excommunicated ; when the 
name of a Christian church was denied us; when our 
people were warned to abandon the ministry of their 
pastors, under the penalty of being regarded as rebels 
B2 



i.8 LETTER I. 

and schismatics, both by God and man ; whea more 
than insinuations of this kind were presented and re- 
iterated, from the pulpit and the press, on every prac- 
ticable occasion, and in almost every possible varie- 
ty of form ; when, by the frequency and the confi- 
dence with which they were brought forward, 
some in our communion were perplexed,, others, 
more discerning and better informed, rendered in- 
dignant, and all appeared to feel the propriety of 
vindicating the abused ordinances of Christ ; — it 
became at least excusable to say something in our 
own defence. It was no bitterness against our 
Episcopal brethren ; no love of controversy ; no 
restless ambition; no desire to intrude into another 
denomination for the purpose of making proselytes, 
that dictated an attempt to justify our principles. — 
I'he attempt was purely defensive, and was de- 
manded by ^every consideration of duty to the souls 
©f men, and of fidelity to our Master in heaven. 

Impressed with this conviction, I addressed to 
\ ou my Letters on the Christian Ministry. Such 
;i manual appeared to me to be much wanted ; a 
manual which was intended to present a concise 
view of the whole subject, v/ithout the useless ap- 
])cndages, and the offensive recriminations which 
have been too frequently admitted. In composing 
this work, it was my sincere aim to render it as free 
from ev^ery thing personal or irritating as possible* 
Accordingly I attacked no particular writer. I 
avoided even mentioning the name of any Ameri- 
can who had written in opposition to that apostolic 



Jntroductorif Remarks. 19 

tiuth and order which we maintain. My argu- 
ments were stated, as far as the nature of the un- 
dertaking admitted, in the abstract ; and a studious 
care was exercised to exhibit the whole in language 
of the most mild and conciliatory character. In ail 
this it was not supposed that offence could reason- 
ably be taken by any, and least of all by our Epis- 
copal brethren. As they had been in the habit ^ for 
several years before the appearance of mv volume, 
of publishing, and distributing, :^yen beyond the 
bounds of their own society, books, in which the 
Episcopal doctrine was warmly urged, and Presby- 
terian principles loaded with opprobrious epithets ; 
it w^as supposed that they would scarcely think 
it very consistent or decent to attack with violent e, 
if at all, a publication so moderate, so respectful, 
and so exclusively intended for Presbyterians. It 
was, therefore, my prevailing expectation, that the 
work would be considered as not belonging to the 
polemic class, and would be suffered to pass wiu^* 
out a reply. 

But in this I was mistaken. With all the m*ld- 
r.ess and inoflensiveness of their character, my Let' 
ters no sooner made their appearance, than mur- 
murs of resentment, and threats of overwhelming 
refutation were heard from various quarters. These 
threats had not been long proclaimed, before at- 
tempts were made to fulfil them. The first who 
presented himself before the public, as an assail- 
ant, was Mr. Thomas 3" Hoxv^ (s-ince the Rev. 
Mr. Uoxv^ of NinV'Tork^ who, in about six 



20 LETTER I. 

months after the publication of my volume, pro- 
duced an angry and vehement pamphl t, which he 
announced as introductory to a more full discus- 
sion of the subject* Mr. How^ after an interval of 
six months more, was followed by the Rev. Dr. 
Boxvden^ Professor of Moral Philosophy^ Logic ^ and 
Belles Lettres in Columbia College. This gentleman, 
who had been long versed in the Episcopal con- 
troversy, and who, more than twenty years ago, 
stepped forth as a champion of the hierarchy, did 
me the honour again to take the field against me, 
and undertook in a work, at least formidable in 
size^ to give a complete refutation of all my argu- 
ments, and to prostrate the Presbyterian cause. 
About the same time with Dr. Boxvden^s two vo- 
lumes, there appeared, on the same side, and with 
the same object, the first of a series of Letters ad- 
dressed to me by the Rev. Dr. Kemp^ Rector of 
Great Clioptank^ m Maryland. And finally, with 
this number, the Rev. Dr. Plobart has united him- 
self, as an occasional remarker on my Letters^ in 
t\\t^Chu7'chman*s Magazine^ published in the city of 
New^Tork^ for the contents of which he acknow- 
ledges himself, both as Editor and Proprietor, to 
be responsible. 

To be fallen upon by so many assailants, and 
with so much vehemence, is a compliment as great 
as it w as unexpected. My thanks are due to these 
gentlemen for conferring on my work a degree of 
importance, and unwittingly disclosing that it has 
made a degree of impression, which I had never 



Introductory Remarks. -21 

ventured to anticipate or to claim. I have also to 
thank them for another favour. Their violent at- 
tacks, and their numerous cavils, have induced me 
to examine the subject with more care, and to pur- 
sue my inquiries respecting it to a greater exttut 
than I should probably otherwise have done. 
The result is a deeper conviction than ever of the 
Wfc^akness of their cause, and of the Apostolic cha- 
racter of our Church. 

With respect to JVIr. Hozv^s pamphlet, it is writ- 
ten with so much heat and impetuosity ; discovers 
such a singular want of acquaintance with radical 
parts of the subject -, and breathes a spirit so evi- 
dently calculated, with all sober and impartial 
readers, to discredit the author himself, more than 
the object of his attack ; that my first resolution, as 
\vell as the general advice of my friends, was to let 
it pass unnoticed. I could scarcely, indeed, form a 
more selfish wish than that all my opponents might 
write thus. And it is certain that Mr. Hoxv would 
never have received a syllable of public reply from 
me, had there been any reason to suppose that his 
work would fall into the hands of none but the dis- 
cerning and well-informed. Recollecting, however, 
that all readers are not qualified to distinguish be- 
tween assertion and proof, between lot'ty assumption 
and solid argument, I felt doubtful whether some re- 
marks might not be usefully made, especially on 
some of the more extraordinary and exceptionable 
prrts of his book. I'he appearance of Dr. Bcw^ 
^enh v.'ork terminated my doubts. This work. 



22 LETTER U 

written in a style of more calmness, and rathei* 
more deroriim than Mr. Hozu^s ; more respectable 
on the score of sober and grave reasoning ; and dis- 
covering more acquaintance with the subject, ap- 
peared to me entided to some reply. In making 
this reply, I determined to bring into one view, the 
most material allegations and reasonings of all the 
gentlemen who have honoured me with their no- 
tice ; and, as they have taken care to praise and 
quote each other, they cannot be displeased at be- 
ing associated together in my remarks. 

And in the first place, my acknowledgments are 
due to these gentlemen, and particularly to Mr. 
How^ for being so kind as to remove all uncertainty 
with respect to the real nature of the opinions 
which they hold. Dr. Bowden^ it is true, does not 
appear very fond of committing himself by explicit 
avowals ; but Mr. Hozv manifests no scruple in 
declaring, in his usual " masterly*'* manner, that 
he considers Presbyterian clergymen as having no 
more right to administer sacraments, or to ordain, 
than so many " laymen^' or ^'^ xvomen^ that all their 
ministrations are perfectly unauthorized and void ; 
that v/ithout Episcopal ordination, there is no mi- 
nistry, no church ; that no case of necessity^ how- 
ever ^;cj^r^;?2<?, can justify any minister or body of 
ministers, in attempting to ordain others, or to 
forni churches, without the intervention of a pre- 
late's hands ; and that all who are not in commu- 
nion with an Episcopal bishop, are out of the churchy 
and have no covenanted title to salvation. Letters^ 



Introductory Remarks. 23 

p. \%* 68, and elsewhere. Mr. How also lets, us 
know that Dr. Boxvden holds similar opinions ; p. 
68. and truly the Doctor himself repeatedly uses 
language which admits of no other construction. It 
is agreeable to find opponents thus candid and ex« 
plicit. We now know the nature of the claim 
which these gentlemen advance, and of course, 
how to meet them. I am happy also to perceive, 
that in my former publication, I have neither mis- 
represented nor exaggerated their sentiments.— 
They are precisely such as I ascribed to the thirdy 
or highest-toned class of Episcopalians. It is to 
the claims of this class only, and not to the mode- 
rate and liberal part of that denomination, that the 
reasonings in the following sheets are intended to 
apply. 

But while these gentlemen arc very undisguised 
and decided in advancing their claims, they write 
in a manner strangely vague and obscure on another 
point. Even admitting, (what we cannot admit, for 
we know the contrary,) that the question whether 
Episcopacy was in f ct^ the primitive constitution 
of the church, were decided in favour of our Epis- 
copal brethren ; still another question remains, viz* 
Is a compliance w^ith that constitution so unaltera- 
bly and indispensably binding on the church, that 
there can be no church, no ministry, no ordinances 
without it? These questions are totally distinct, 
and ought never to be confounded. Yet Dr. Boxv- 
den and Mr. How almost uniformly confound 
them ; and seem to think that if the forager ques- 



24 I.ETTER I. 

tion be answered in the afBrmative, the latter must 
of course be answered in a similar manner. — In a 
few instances, indeed, they admit the distinction to 
which I allude, and assert, that their only object is 
to establish the Apostolical institution of Episcopa- 
cy, without undertaking to pronounce on the conse- 
quences of rejecting it. But it is evident that, for 
the most part, they entirely lose sight of this dis- 
tinction, and write as if the establishment of the 
fact, that Prelacy existed in the primitive church, 
must effectually destroy the character of all church- 
es not found in possession of that form of govern- 
ment. Whether these positions so totally distinct 
are so generally confounded by my opponents for 
want of clear and distinguishing views, or with de- 
sign, I presume not to say. — But every discerning 
reader will be on his guard against imposition from 
either source. 

These gentlemen, indeed, themselves assert, 
with the whole body of Episcopal writers, that the 
apostles never intended to lay down a model of 
church government, which should be, in all its 
parts^ perpetually binding : and, of course, that the 
church is not bound to be, in all respects^ con*, 
formed to the apostolic model. I am not now 
inquiring whether this doctrine be correct or 
not. But if it be, how can the want of prelacy 
destroy the character and even the existence of 
the church ? In what part of Scripture is it said, 
that every other part of the Apostolic government 
oi tUe chuicli is mutable^ atJcL ma^ uc modified hjr 



I 



Introductory Ronarks. 25 

human wisdom ; but thai dispensing with the single 
point of Bishops^ is l^ital to the whole ? My oppo- 
nents, then, even on their own principles, are far from 
having accomplished the task which they prescrib- 
ed to themselves. They have never shown, and are 
not able to show, that prelacy was instituted by the 
Apostles ', but even if they coiild^ many links would 
still be wanting in the chain of proof, that this form 
of government is so necessary, that there can be no 
church without it, 

Mr. Hovj^ for reasons which he himself best 
understands, has thought proper to assert, that 
my Letters '^ are well know^n to be the result of 
several years of laborious attention to the sub- 
ject which they discuss." Another writer in the 
Chi(rchmai2*s 31agazme^ has made a similar asser- 
tion ; and boasts that the advocates of the Episco- 
pal church will not require as much time to an- 
swer, as w^as employed in writing them. I cheer- 
fully yield to these gentlemen the palm of celerity 
and copiousness in WTiting ; and even if the state- 
ment respecting the time employed in preparing 
my publication w^ere true, it is not easy to see * 
how it bears on the argument. What would it avail 
a culprit to show that the collection of the testi- 
mony whrch seals his conviction was the work of a 
month instead of a day? But the statement is not 
true. My attention to the Episcopal controversy had 
been very small, perhaps culpably so, until within a 
few months previous to the pul)lication of mv Let- 

C 



26 Letter i. 

ters* When the printing was begun, not more than 
one third of the volume was written ; and tlie 
greater part of it was actually composed during 
the three montha x^hich were consumed in passing 
the sheets through the press. But though the 
work was chiefly written with that haste which eve- 
ry one who has run a race with the press well un- 
derstands ; and amidst the feebleness of an habitu- 
al valetudinarian, as well as the distraction and Fa- 
tigue of multiplied professional labours ; it affords me 
some satisfaction to reflect, that, after the maturest 
deliberation, I see no cause to retract a single argu- 
ment, or materially to alter a single statement. On 
the contrary, further reading and reflection hav^e 
convinced me, that every argument, and every 
statement, notwithstanding all the contemptuous 
sneers, and confident assertions of my opponents, 
are capable of being irrefragably fortified. 

Mr. How also endeavours to represent my work 
as an unprovoked attack on the Episcopal church, 
and to throw upon it all the odium of aggression. 
To those who are acquainted with the incontro- 
vertible facts stated in the beginning of this letter, 
such a representation will appear something more 
than strange ! If to state and defend the principles 
of my own church, after they had been frequently 
and violently attacked ; if a calm and respectful 
plea against a sentence of excommunication from 
the church of Christ ; if an attempt to show, that 
we, as Presbyterians, are not aliois from the com^ 
monwealth of larael^ and strangers to the covenant 



Introductory Remarks* 27 

if fyromise ; if a work designed to prove that our 
ministry and ordinances have as fair a claim to di- 
vine warrant as those of our Episcopal brethren ; 
and that they, in denying us the character of a 
church, and in consigning us over, with the hea- 
then, to the uncovenanted mercies of God, act 
wholly without warrant — if these things constitute 
an unprovoked attack on the Episcopal church — 
tlien, indt-ed, I have been guilty of such an attai k. 
But I am not afraid that any one who is acquainted 
with facts, and who understands the import of 
terms, will eitlier bring such a charge himself, or 
consider it with respect u'hen brought 1^^ others. 

Another charge which these gentlemen concur in 
urging, is no less unexpected and extraordinary. 
It is, that I have written with great bitterness^ and 
that even my moderation is affected and insidious. 
This is a point concerning which no man can be 
an impartial judge in his own case. But, after re- 
ceiving so many respectable suffrages in favour of 
the mildness and decorum of my style ; after re- 
ceiving the acknowledgments of so many mode- 
rate and candid Episcopalians in different parts of 
the United States, both clergymicn and laymen, 
that I had avoided asperity and bitterness to a very 
unusual degree ; it is impossible to avoid suspect- 
ing that these gentlemen, (who, so far as I know 
stand alone in making this charge,) have felt irri- 
tated by statements which they could not deny, and 
by arguments which they could not refute ; and 
that they have mistaken both for bitterness and 



28 LETTER I. 

abuse. Dr. Bowden and Mr. Hoxv never discover 
so much wounded feeling and irascible temper, as 
when they meet with intimations of any affinity be- 
tween some of their high-toned doctrines, and 
those of Popery. The intimations of this kind 
which my book contains, were made neither lightly, 
nor with passion; but with a conscientious per- 
suasion of their correctness. This persuasion re- 
mains with undiminished or rather with increased 
force. And it happens, unfortunately for these 
gentlemen, that similar charges of popish origin and 
tendency, have been brought against several of the 
same doct'^nes, by some of the most pious and* 
learned Bishops of their own church. Nor can I 
forbear to add, that the pointed resentment which 
my opponents manifest at every suggestion of this 
kind, is calculated to excite the suspicion, that they 
feel it more easy to rail at such intimations than to 
ansiver them. 

Dr. Bowden makes frequent and heavy com- 
plaints, that, in citing authorities^ I have not been 
sufficiently careful to refer to the precise chapter 
and page. He rebukes me severely for the trouble 
which I have given him in this way ; and more 
than once insinuates that my references were made 
in this general manner, either because I had nev^er 
read the books quoted, or because I was unwilling 
the quotations should be fairly examined. Without 
stopping to answer the insinuation, I would ask this 
gendeman whether, in writing plain, didactic, pas- 
toral addresses, such as my Letters Vv^ere intended 



Introductory Rernarks. 29 

to be, it is either customary or proper to attend 
with as much care to references, and to detail wit^ 
as much exactness the history of every quotation, 
as in works of a controversial nature ? If I do not 
misconceive both the point of propriety, and the ac- 
tual practice of the best writers, it would have 
been vain parade, as well as needless scrupulosity, 
to croud my pages with references. The Pro- 
fessor's rebuke is therefore unmerited. But is Dr. 
Boivden himself free from the fault with which he 
charges me ? He is not. After a number of severe, 
and certainly not very delicate remarks, on my want 
of precision in a few of my references ; and, after 
solemnly promising to act in a more "scholar-like" 
manner on his part, he has, if I do not mistake, fal- 
len, at least as frequently as myself, into the very 
omission of which he so heavily complains. This is 
as unpardonable as it is extraordinary. But it is 
only one among the numerous facts which daily 
prove that it is much more easy to see a 7note in our 
brothers^s eye than a beam in our oivn. 

Dr. Boivden and Mr. How both repeatedly 
insinuate, that I quote w^riters at " second-hand /"* 
that I " garble " quotations ; and that I frequently 
either entirely mistake, or wilfully pervert, their 
meaning. These are heavy charges; but they give 
me litde concern, firmly persuaded that all who 
read my Letters, and compare my citations with the 
works from which they are derived, will need no 
other refutation. How far my opponents have a 
right to assume lofty airs about rractilating quota* 
C 2 



^0 LETTER I, 

tiG7is^ or giving them with parade at second-hand^ 
you will be better able to judge before you com- 
plete the perusal of these sheets. I have, indeed, 
read little — alas! by far too little. But I have 
read enough to perceive that all ignorance and 
all mistakes are not on the side of Presbyteri- 
ans. And though I have sometimes been com- 
pelled to quote writers at siscond hand, and on trust, 
because their books were not within my reach ; yet 
I have consulted a sufficient number of originals to 
detect arts of which their authors would have been 
wise not to invite an investigation. 

But Dr. Bowden makes another complaint, which 
is still more extraordinary. He thinks me very 
censurable for not having stated, in addition to the 
arguments in support of our opinions, the principal 
answers, " the triumphant replies," which Episco- 
pal writers have given to these arguments. In one 
case, particularly, he addresses me thus : " You cer- 
" tainly must have heard of, if you have not read, 
*^ Slater* s Original Draugh}^ in answer to lord King^ 
" which it has always been confidently said, made 
^^ his lordship a convert to Diocesan Episcopacy. 
" If you have heard of Slater s book, but not read 
" it, you should have made a point of procuring 
" it, and of stating his answer, that your readers 
" might have a fair opportunity of judging for them- 
" selves." Vol. I. Letter 7. p. 186. I can assure this 
learned Professor, who so kindly undertakes to in- 
struct me in my duty, that I both possessed and had 
read Slater^s work, long before I ever heard of Dr. 



Introductory Rernarh. 51 

Rowden or his Letters; and that, hov/ever it impress- 
ed lord King^ it was so far from converting me to 
Diocesan Episcopacy, that it rather served to con- 
firm me in my Presbyterian principles. But is it 
possible that this complaint of Dn Bozuden can be se- 
riously made ? Did I not distinctly announce, in my 
introductory Letter, that my object was, not to write 
a full and complete treatise, but a small and popu- 
lar manual ? Did I not fairly apprize my readers, 
that this plan would " lay me under the necessity 
" of being every where extremely brief, and oi to- 
'^ tally excluding many topics, both of argument 
" and illustration, which might be profitably mtro- 
" duced ?" And did I not, to relieve, in some mea- 
sure, the difficulty thence arising, promise, that ^' no 
*^ arguments should be urged, but those which I 
*' believed to have stood immoveably solid, aUer 
** everv attempt to answer them f" Was it frj\ du* 
ty, then ; would it have been proper, after ail this, 
when I felt myself obliged to omit many arguments 
&n my own side, which w^ere, in mv vit w, power ul 
and iinportant; to introduce arguments, man\ of 
them frivolous, and most of them dr stitute of real 
force, merely for the purpose of swelling mv work 
into a number of volumes, and preventing it from 
bt mg read by those for whom it was intended ? I 
have the charity to believe, that if Dr. Bowden had 
indulged a moment's reflection, he w^ould have 
hi ' n ashamed to urge a complaint so unworthy of 
his grave character. 

Besides, if it was my duty to state in detail all 



3^ LETTf:R !• 

those arguments which the fond partiality of some 
Episcopal writers has been pleased to style ^^ un- 
answerable," ^'triumphant," " demonstrative," &c. 
was it not Dr. Boxvdtn\ duty to do the same with 
respect to the arguments of Presbyterian writers ? 
But has he done this ? If I do not mistake, every 
impartial reader will pronounce, that in my little 
manual, I have gone as far, if not further, in stating 
the arguments and replies of my opponents, than this 
gentleman has in his two volumes. 

These gentlemen, in the course of their stric- 
tures, have allowed themselves frequently to employ 
language of which I cannot forbear to exhibit a 
specimen. Dr. Bowden charges me with '^ con- 
temptible cavilling ;" with " contemptible puerili- 
ties;" with '^ misrepresentations gross to excess;" 
with writing " nonsense," *•' palpable nonsense,*' 
&. . &c. &c. Mr. Ho-aP^ pamphlet abounds wnth 
language, which I hope he will reconsider, in his 
cooler moments, with shame and regret. He 
charges me with " a continued strain of misrepre- 
sentation ;" with '' an outrage on decency itself ;" 
with a construction '^ as puerile as it is disingenu- 
ous ;" with " fanatical absurdity ;" with " viola- 
tions of the plain language of Scripture, as pre- 
sumptuous as are to be met with in the entire an- 
nals of fanaticism ;" with " talking like a deranged 
fanatic;" and with advancing allegations which I 
" ought to know, and cannot but know," to be 
groundless. In fact, he frequentlv imputes to me, 
in terms a little indirect and softened, known and 



Introductory Remarks. 33 

deliberate falsehood. And on one occasion, he per- 
mits himself to address me thus : " You could not 
^' possibly have adopted a mode of address more 
" calculated to sour the minds of your readers, or 
" better fitted to indulge the bitterness of your own 
" heart. It is indirect and insidious, covering un- 
" der the mask of moderation and kindness, all the 
" loftiness of pride, and all the rankling of passion.'** 
p. 16. Dr. Hobart represents me as writing with 
great " arrogance" and '* bitterness," and even with 
insidioiLsness^ a term which no intelligent reader 
needs to be told, implies dishonesty. I regret that 
such language has found its way into this contro- 
versy. I am not able to see that it aids the argu- 
ment of those who emploj^it; and it certainly con- 
tributes ^nothing to the charity of Christian inter- 
course. You w^ill not imagine, I am sure, that 
this language is capable of exciting in me a feel- 
ing of personal resentment or pain. But it is ex- 
ceedingly to be lamented, that gentlemen of their 
station should indulge in a style so scrupulously 
banished from all dignified and polished society ; 
that a person so long employed as one of them has 
been, in forming the moral principles and character 
of youth, should discover so little success in the dis- 
cipline of his own temper ; and that they have not all 
more highly appreciated the duty oih^va^ examples 
to theJlocL It shall be my aim, in the following 
pages, to avoid all similar language. And if you 
should ever find me inadvertently betrayed into it, 
be assured it is contrary to my fixed resolution ; and 



34 LETT EH i. 

that, when discovered, it will be a source of inu 
feigned regret. May we all remember, with the 
celebrated author of the Ecclesiastical Polity^ that 
'' there will come a time when three words uttered 
" with charity and meekness shall receive a far 
" nore blessed reward than three thousand vo- 
^^ lumes written with disdainful sharpness of witT' 

But these gentlemen not only employ, on their 
part, what I must consider as exceptionable lan- 
guage ; they also impute to me language scarcely 
less offensive or exceptionable than thtir own# Dr. 
Bowden sa^^s that I pronounce Episcopacy an anti' 
christian usurpation. Vol. I. p. 245. And Mr. How 
asserts, that I '' brand prelacy as the detested off* 
spring of ecclesiastical fraud and tyrannijP 1 can 
onlv say that no such expressions are to be found in 
my book ; and that whatever there is in them v/hich 
bears an opprobrious or indelicate character, is to 
be ascribed, not to me, but to the invention of my 
accusers. 

I shall not attempt to follow these gentlemen 
through all their minute and tedious details. For' 
this drudgery I have neither leisure nor inclination^ 
It would be again to travel over the whole ground 
which I have already endeavoured to explore, and 
to exhibit in a just light; and which, after careful- 
ly attending to all that they have said, still appears 
to me to rest on immoveable foundations. After 
requesting you to peruse my former Letters a se- 
cond time with care, and to com!)are them impar- 
tially with what my opponents have advanced, the 



Intrcdicfory Semarks, 35 

cause is cheerfuUv committed to your decision. 
Ail that I propose, at present, is to review some of 
the most plausible reasonings of these zealous and 
confident polemics; to point out a few of their 
more 8:ross and palpable mistakes ; and to show the 
candid reader how far he can rely on the statements 
of persons who discover so little acquaintriuce with 
rsiore than one side of the controversy ; and at the 
same time allow themselves to speak as if they en- 
grossed all knowledge, and as if wisdom would die 
with them. 

These Letters, mv brethren, as well as the former 
series, are intended solely for your use. The} are 
ocrasioned, indeed, by the strictures of the gentle- 
nien whose names are mentioned in the title page ; 
br.t I have not thouj^ht proper to address those gen- 
tlemen directly. With them I have no personal 
dispute. Though they have intruded into our 
Church for the purpose of attacking me in the peace- 
able discharge of my pastoral dutits, I have still 
no disposition to do more than to act on the defen- 
sive. But to refute their cavils, to rtpel their un- 
founded and injurious charges, to lay open the 
weakness of their cause, and to expose their want 
of information on this subject, is a duty which I 
owe to \'ou. This duty I will attempt to discharge ; 
and in the execution of it, I hope j cu will follow me 
patiently. 



[' 36 ] 
LETTER IL 



Gomparatwe stress laid on Ecclesiastical Order by 
Presbyterians and High-Churchmen. The doc- 
trine of the Jure-Divino Presbyterians brief y 
stated, 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

1 WO of the gentlemen whose attacks I am called 
upon to repel, accuse me of misrepresenting the 
high-toned Episcopal doctrine which they avow, 
and endeavour to maintain. They impute to me a 
desire to excite prejudices against them, by insinu- 
ating, that they exclude all but Episcopalians from 
salvation. Mr. Hoxu^ in particular, brings forward 
and urges this accusation with great zeal. I utter- 
ly deny the charge. I never intended to convey 
such an insinuation ; and am persuaded that my 
Letters do not contain a single sentence which can 
be fairly construed as expressing it. 

But I have asserted, that such Episcopalians as 
agree with these writers, exclude us from the cove- 
nanted mercy of God, and declare us to be destitute 
of all interest in the promises of salvation. I have 
asserted, that they pronounce us to be out of the 
church of Christ, and aliens from the covenant of 
grace. I have asserted, that, while they express a 



Presbyterians not lUiheraU S7 

charitable hope that such of us as depart from the 
Episcopal church from " involuntary ignorance or er- 
ror," will find mercy ; they uniformly consider and 
represent this mercy as extended to Presbyterians, 
in the same manner, and on the same principles, as 
to the heathen; that is, not in yirtw^ oi 2LViy covenayit 
engagement^ or explicit promise ; but on the foot- 
ing of general, unpledged mercy. I have said this^^ 
and this only; and all this, they have themselves, 
in effect, avowed, repeated, and gloried in with a 
seal worthy of a better cause. 

But these gentlemen insist, that however high 
and offensive their claims may be considered, xue^ 
on our part, advance claims as high and as offen- 
sive as theirs ; and, therefore, on our own princi- 
ples, have no right to complain. They urge this 
argument with much confidence, and seem to re- 
gaid it as a triumphant answer to the charge of 
unscriptural assumption. Mr. Hoxu expresses him- 
self thus : " Episcopalians lay no more stress on 
" external order than does the society to which you 
" belong. Who could have supposed it possible, 
*' after seeing you through several pages, declaim- 
*•' ing against the monstrous pretensions of your 
" opponents, that they carry external order precise- 
'' ly as far as your own Confession of Faith ^ and not 
" a tittle further." p. 16. Again he says, " You 
" inveigh bitterly against your Episcopal neigh- 
" hours, for asserting the exclusive validity of Epis- 
*' copal ordination. But you equally assert the ex- 
^^ elusive validity of Presbyterial ordination ; tell- 

D 



38 LETTER II. 

" ing us, that, without such ordination, there can 
" be no ministry ; without a ministry, no church ; 
" and without a church, no covenanted title to sal- 
" vation. In addition to all this, you assert the di- 
" vine institution of Presbyterial government, in all 
^' its parts, excluding its habitual violators, cases of 
^^ unavoidable ignorance or involuntary error ex- 
^' cepted, from the kingdom of heaven. If the 
^' Episcopal doctrine is of a nature nearly allied to 
''* the claim of Papal hifalUbility, your doctrine 
^^ must be the claim of Papal infallibility itself." 
p. 117. Nay, he asserts, that Presbyterians carry 
their ideas of the importance of external order 
much further than Episcopalians, p. 22, 23. " I 
" proceed to observe that Presbyterians go much 
" further than Episcopalians in their ideas of ex- 
^' ternal order. Thus, not contented with making 
" Presbyterial ordination essential to the existejjpe 
** of the church, and to all covenanted title to sal- 
" vation, they tell us that Presbyterial government 
" is, in all its parts, sketched out in scripture ; that 
" it is the duty of all Christians to conform to it ; 
*' and that, in refusing or rfeglecting to do so, 
" they incur great guilt. The plan of ruling el- 
" ders and deacons, with mere temporal func- 
*' tions ; the whole system of church sessions, 
*' Presbyterial assemblies, Synodical assemblies, 
" and General assemblies, they say, is prescribed 
^' in the word of God. In fact, it is im.possible 
" to carry external order further than these men 
" carry it. See the language which they hold ! 



Presbyterians not UliheraL 39 

" Presbyterial government, in church sessions, 
" Presbyterial assemblies, Synodical assemblies, 
*' and General assemblies, is established by the 
^* Apostles, and is the law of God's house. All are 
*' bound to conform to it. Habitual disobedience 
" to any of the divine commands will exclude from 
^* the kingdom of heaven. Thus all but Presbyte- 
" rians are consigned to perdition. And what re- 
" lief do they give ? Why, simply, that there are 
" sins of ignorance and infirmity which may consist 
'' with a gracious state. So that our opponents not 
" only make Presbyterial ordination essential to the 
'' existence of the church, but they represent obe- 
" dience to their particular mode of ecclesiastical 
" government as a condition of salvation : placing 
'* all who reject it on the ground of the general 
** mercy which, it is hoped, God will extend toper- 
'^ sons labouring under unavoidable, or involuntary, 
" error. And is not this sir, the exact ground on 
•* which those zvho depart from the Episcopal consti- 
" tiition of the priesthood^ are placed by the very 
^' 7nen against whom you so bitterly inveigh f^ 
This is such a favourite topic of declamation with 
Mr. How^ that he can scarcely get through a single 
page, without directly or indirectly recurring to it. 
His coadjutors seem to be never better pleased than 
when joining in the same strain. And truly it 
wants nothing to render it a very plausible argu- 
ment, but the single circumstance of having some 
foundation in fact. Of this, I am compelled to say, 
it is totally destitute. 



4© 



LETTER II. 



To show that Mr. Hoxv^ in writing thus, unjust- 
ly accuses our church, nothing more is necessary 
than to transcribe the following chapters from our 
Confession ofFaith^ and Form ofGovernment. I'hey 
are given entire^ that there may be no suspicion of 
conceahiient or mutilation; that the several sec- 
tions of each chapter may explain one another ; and, 
I will add, that Mr. Hoxv^ if he should ever hap- 
pen to look into these pages, may have an op- 
portunity of reading them, which, after perusing 
such remarks as are quoted above, I cannot sup- 
pose he has ever yet done. 

Confession of Faith. Chap. XXV. Of the Church. 

" I. The Catholic or universal church, which is 
invisible^ consists of the whole number of the elect, 
that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, 
under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, 
the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. , 

" II. The visible church which is also catholic 
or universal under the gospel, (not confined to one 
nation as before under the law,) consists of all 
those throughout the world, that profess the true 
religion, together with their children ; and is the 
kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and 
family of God, out of which there is no ordinary 
possibility of salvation. 

" III. Unto this catholic visible church, Christ 
hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of 
God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, 
in this life, to the end of the world: and doth by 



Fresbyterians not illiberaL 41 

his own presence and Spirit, according to his pro- 
mise, make them effectual thereunto, 

'' IV. This catholic church hath been some- 
times more, sometimes less visible. And parti* 
cular churches, which are members thereof, are 
more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the 
gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances admin- 
istered, and public worship performed more or less 
purely in them. 

" V. The purest churches under heaven are 
subject both to mixture and error : and some have 
so degenerated, as to become no churches of-Christ, 
but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless there shall 
be always a church o;i earth, to worship God ac 
cording to his will. 

" VI. There is no other head of the church but 
the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, 
in any sense be head thereof; but is that anti- 
christ, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that 
exalteth himself, in the church, against Christ, and 
all that is called God." 

Form of Government. Chap. I. Of the Church. 

" I. Jesus Christ, who is now exalted, far above 
all principality, and power, hath erected, in this 
world, a kingdom, which is his church. 

" IL The universal church consists of all those 
persons, in every nation, together with their chil- 
dren, who make profession of the holy religion of 
Christ, and of submission to his laws. 

" III. As this immense multitude cannot meet 



42 LETTER 11. 

together, in one place, to hold communion, or to 
worship God, it is reasonable, and warranted by 
scripture example^ that they should be divided into 
many particular churches. 

*' IV. A particular church consists of a number 
of professing Christians, with their offspring, volun- 
tarily associated together, for divine worship and 
godly living, agreeably to the holy scriptures ; and 
submitting to a certain form of government.'^ 

Form of Government. Chap. II. Of the Officers of 
the Church. 

^' I. Our blessed Lord, at first, collected his church 
out of different nations, and formed it into one 
body, by the mission of men endued with miracu- 
lous gifts, which have long since ceased. 

'' II. The ordinary and perpetual officers^ in the 
church, are Bishops or Pastors; the representatives 
of the people, usually styled Ruling Elders^ and 
Deacons.'*^ 

Form of Governrnent. Chap. VII. Of Church Gc' 
vernment^ and the Several kinds of Judicatories., 

" I. It is absolutely necessary that the govern- 
i^cnt of the church be exercised under some cer- 
tain and definite form : And we hold it to be expe- 
dient, and agreeable to scripture and the practice 
ef the primitive Christians, that the church be go- 
verned by congregational, presbyterial and synodi- 
cal assemblies. In full consistency with this belief, 
xve embrace^ in the spirit ofcharityj those Christians 



Presbyterians not illiberaL 43 

xvho differ from iis^ in opinion or in practice^ on 
these subjects. 

" II. These assemblies ought not to possess any 
civil jurisdiction, nor to inflict any civil penalties : 
Their power is wholly moral or spiritual, and that 
only ministeral and declarative. I'hey possess the 
right of requiring obedience to the laws of Christ ; 
and of excluding the disobedient and disorderly, 
from the privileges of the church. To give effi- 
ciency, however, to this necessary and scriptural 
authority, they possess the powers requisite for ob- 
taining evidence and inflicting censure : They can 
call before them any offender against the order and 
government of the church : They can require 
members, of their ow^n society, to appear and give 
testimony on the cause ; but the highest punish- 
ment to which their authority extends is to exclude 
the contumacious and impenitent, from the congre- 
gation of believers." 

In these chapters, every line is marked with 
wisdom, moderation, and charity. They are so 
far from asserting that no church is entitled to the 
name of a church of Christ, but our own^ that the 
contrary is clearly and unequivocally acknowledg- 
ed. They are so far from maintaining, that there 
is no salvation out of the pale of our church, that 
they could scarcely have found words more strong- 
ly to express an opposite opinion, without running 
into unlimited latitudinarianism. They make the 
visible church to consist of all those throughout the 
xvorld^ xvho profess the true religion^ together with 



44 LETTER II. 

their children ; and^ lest the phrase, the true reli^ 
gion^ might be construed to mean an exact conform' 
ity with our own standards^ they declare that they 
consider as included in the visible catholic Church, 
many churches less pure than their own, and that 
they freely " embrace in the spirit of Charity, 
" those christians who differ from them, in opinion,, 
" or in practice, on these subjects." They go on 
to state, that this visible church is the kingdom of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of 
God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility 
of salvation ; thus making express provision for 
the exercise of mercy in ways extraordinary, and 
therefore unknown to us. Could any thing be more 
guarded or remote from bigotry ? These gentle- 
men, however, insist, that in the chapter of the Con-' 
fession of Faith, (Chap. 27.) which treats of the Sa- 
craments, it is formally declared, that " neither of 
" the sacraments may be dispensed by any other 
'' than a minister of the word lawfully ordained.^'* 
But what is this to the purpose ? Who is a " Mi- 
nister of the word lawfully ordained ?" If any pre- 
ceding or subsequent passage in our public stand- 
ards, had asserted, or even intimated, that no mi- 
nister is lawfully ordained, but one who has been 
set apart exactly in our mode, there would be some 
pretext for this cavil. But no such assertion or in- 
timation, nor any thing that resembles either, is 
contained in the whole book. It prescribes the 
course of study, and the kind of trials which can- 
didates for the ministry, in our church, shall be re- 



Fresbyterians not lUiheraL 4.5 

quired to pass through, and it also directs the mode 
of their ordination : but it pronounces no sentence 
of invalidity on other modes of conducting these im- 
portant concerns ; nor does it give a hint, from 
which, by fair reasoning, such a sentence can be 
deduced. 

But this is not all. While the language of our 
Confession of Faith ^ and Articles of Government^ is 
catholic and charitable in a very remarkable degree, 
their histGry illustrates and confirms their lan- 
guage. They were drawn up by the Westminster 
Assembly of Divines^ than which a more venerable 
body of ministers never convened. This illustri- 
ous ecclesiastical Council consisted of more than a 
hundred divines, besides the lay members. And 
it is rem.arkable, that alloi these divines, excepting 
about seven or eighty had received Episcopal ordina- 
tion, and no other. Is it credible that these men, 
assembled as ministers, judicially deliberating and 
acting as ministers, could have intended to pro- 
nounce their ov/n ordination null and void ? Or 
that they would frame articles declaring all such or- 
dinations in future invalid ? No ; such a sentence was 
never pronounced \ and I may confidently assert, 
was never thought of by a member of that assem- 
bly. While they declared the Presbyterian form 
of church government to be the apostolic and pri- 
mitive plan ; they explicitly acknowledged the va- 
lidity of Episcopal orders and ministrations. And 
the same has been the language and the conduct of 
every Presbyterian church that ever existed on 
earth. 



46 LETTER II. 

Ministers Episcopally ordained have frequently 
applied to be received into Christian and ministe- 
rial communion with Presbyterian churches, !)Oth 
in Europe and America. But did Mr. How ever 
hear of one of them being re-ordained ? I will v^eri- 
ture to say he never did. Ministers have offered 
themselves to the church to which I have the ho- 
nour to belong, not only from the Episcopal^ but 
also from the Methodist and the Baptist churches. 
But was a re^ordination ever attempted, in any one 
of these cases ? I can confidently affirm that no 
such case ever occurred ; certainly none ever came 
to my knowledge. In every instance in which it 
was ascertained that the minister applying to be re- 
ceived, had been regularly set apart to the sacred 
office, by the imposition of the hands of men au- 
thorized to preach and administer sacraments in 
their own church, he was freely received, and his 
ordination sustained as valid. Does this look like 
pronouncing our precise form of church order in* 
dispensable to a regular ministry, to valid ordinan- 
ces, or to final salvation ? Had we been accused of 
being zealous advocates for the doctrine of Purga' 
tory or Transubstantiatioii^ the charge would have 
been equally true, and equally creditable to the 
candour of its author. 

But perhaps Mr. IIoxv will plead, that, although 
our church, in the languageof her public standards, 
is, on the whole, liberal and conciliatory; yet that 
other branches of the Presbyterian body, particu- 
larly those with which Dr. Mason^ and Mr. M'-Leod. 



Presbyteriajis not lUiberaL 4tf 

are cpnnected, go the whole length of asserting the 
exclusive validity of the Presbyterian ministry and 
ordinances. Such is one of the arts to which this 
gentleman resorts, when he cannot find materials 
enough in our Confession of Fa'ith^ to satisfy his 
insatiable appetite for proscription and excommu- 
nication. But neither will this subterfuge avail him. 
He accuses others as unjustly as he accuses us. It 
is not true that the most high-toned Presbyterians 
on earth, go any thing like the length, in maintain- 
ing the necessity of our particular mode of consti- 
tAiting the christian ministry, that this gentleman 
and his friends do in asserting the exclusive validity 
of Episcopal ordination. And, although both Br. 
Mason and Mr. M^Leod may hold some opinions 
concerning the Christian church in which I do not 
entirely concur with them ; yet there cannot be 
greater injustice than to speak of them and their 
writings in the manner in which Mr. Hoxv has 
permitted himself to do. To v/hat this mis-state- 
ment of their opinions is to be ascribed, it becomes 
not me to say. I dare not impeach the integrity of 
Mr. Hoxv* For acquitting his honesty at the ex- 
pense of his understanding, he would not thank 
me : And to suppose that he has allowed himself to 
speak with so much positiveness of their tenets, 
without any acquaintance with them, would be as 
offensive as either. 

But are there not some Presbyterians who hold 
that their form of church government was the apos- 
tolic and primitive form? Undoubtedly, many<. 



48 LETTER II. 

And are there not some also, who go further, and 
insist that diis form is binding on the church, un- 
der all circumstances and states of society, and, of 
course, ought to be adopted in all ages ? There are 
certainly some who go even this length. Well! 
my opponents will reply, is not this holding to the 
divine right of Presbyterian government ? It is. 
And is it not, of consequence, going the whole 
length with us, and denying that there can be any 
true church, or valid ordinances without it ? Cer- 
tainly not. The conclusion has no more connexlbn 
with the premises, than with the most remote ob- 
ject in creation. 

As both Dr. Bowclen and Mr. How have evi- 
dently yet to learn the sentiments of the Jure divino 
Presbyterians, and as, for want of information on 
this point, they are groping in the dark, whenever 
they approach it ; I will endeavour to enlighten 
this part of their path, and, if possible, prevent, in fu- 
ture, those perpetual wanderings, which are really 
much more calculated to excite the ridicule, or the 
commiseration, than the resentment of their Pres- 
byterian readers. 

The advocates, then, for the divine right of 
Presbytery, (I now speak of the most rigid class 
of them,) believe that, in the apostolic church 
every regularly organized congregation of chris- 
tians was furnished with three classes of church of- 
ficers, with a Bishop, (or Pastor,) Ruling Elders, 
and Deacons ; that the bench of Elders, with the 
Bishop as their standing Moderator or President, 



Doctrine of Preshyferians* 49 

constituted the spiritual court, for directing all af- 
fairs purely ecclesiastical in the congregation ; that 
the Bishops of a number of neighbouring congre- 
gations, were in the habit of statedly meeting to- 
gether, not only to cherish a spirit of union and 
fraternal affection, but also to deliberate on matters 
of more general concern, than those of a particular 
church ; that in these larger assemblies or Presby- 
teries, (or by v.hatever name they were called,) a 
delegation from the Eldership of each church at- 
tended with their Bishop ; and that, either sta- 
tedly or occasionally, (it matters not which, as to 
the principle,) the Bishops and Elders of much 
larger districts, convened under the title oi Synods 
or Councils^ for the purpose of discussing and de* 
ciding great questions, and of making general ar- 
rangements. This, they suppose, was the form of 
government which the Apostles, acting under the 
inspiration of God, established in the primitive 
church. 'I'hey believe, moreover, that as this 
form of ecclesiastical polity was adopted by inspired 
men, it is the best form ; that it was intended to 
be perpetual ; that it is the duty of churches, in ail 
ages, and in all states of society, to adopt it ; and 
that in proportion as any deviate from it, they de- 
viate from the simplicity and purity of the apostolic 
age, and contravene the will of God. 

But, while this class of Presbyterians zealously 
maintain the principles which have been stated, 
they, at the same time, explicitly grant, that there 
may be deviations from this apostolic form of g^. 

E 



50 LETTER II. 

vernment, without destroying^ or, in any essential 
degree, impairing^ the character of a Christian 
church. They suppose that imperfection attends 
every thing human. That although every church, 
as well as every man, is required to he in all re^ 
spects perfectly conformed to the Divine will; yet 
that neither anij churchy nor any man is, infact^ thus 
perfect. They suppose that, among individual pro- 
fessors of religion, there may be all manner of va- 
riety as to the degrees of exemplariness which they 
manifest ; and yet that they may all be entitled, in 
the judgment of charity, to be considered as visible 
christians; and further, that cases may arise, in 
which it w^ould be^ difficult to decide whether a 
man's deviations had proceeded so far, as that he 
ought, on the whole, to be excluded from this class 
or not. In like manner, the Presbyterians of 
w^hom we are speaking, admit that there are 
churches which differ considerably as to the de- 
grees of purity which they have preserved, but 
which, nctv/ithstanding, are all entided to the cha- 
racter of visible Churches of Christ. They sup- 
pose, indeed, that all deviations from primitive 
simplicity, v»^hether in doctrine, in worship, or in 
government, are blameable^ and ought to be cor* 
rected; but still, that such may exist, in a certain 
degree, without excluding those who are guilty of 
them from the class of Churches. And in what 
actual cases these deviations have become so nu- 
merous and important as to render them no longer 
Churches of Christ, but Synagogues of Satan ^ they 
have seldom undertaken to pronounce. 



Doctrine of Presbyterians, St 

The most rigid Presbyterians have, at different 
times, both as individuals and judicatories ; both 
by their writings, and their decisions, explicitly ac- 
knowledged different denominations of Christians to 
be true churches of Christ. They have acknowledge 
ed our Congregational brethren in Nexv-'England ; 
the regular Independents in various parts of Greats 
Britain ; the Episcopalians in England ?ind America; 
the Lutherans in Germany and the United States; 
and the Methodist and Baptist denominations, as 
all churches of Christ- They consider all these, 
indeed, as more or less corrupt ; and have, accord- 
ingly, at different times, and without reserve, 
v/iitten, preached, and printed their testimony 
against those corruptions ; but still they have 
never said of any of them, that they had no church, 
no ministr}', no valid ordinances, but acknowledg- 
ed the contrary without hesitation or scruple. 

In short, the high-toned Presbyterians, of whom 
we are speaking do not carry the divine right of 
Church Government further than they carry the di- 
vine right of doctrine and xvorship in the church. 
Nay, it may be asserted, that, without a single 
exception, they have always laid 7nore stress on the 
two latter than on the Jirst^ as entering more im- 
mediately than that into the vital interests and cha- 
racter of the church. Now, it is well known, that 
this class of Presbyterians, as well as all others, 
freely admit that there may be departures from ab- 
solute purity, both in doctrine and worship, without 
tm-churching those who admit them. They be- 



52 LETTilR li. 

lieve, for instance, that Arminianism is. a doctrinal 
corruption; but yet they would shudder to pro- 
nounce that those churches which receive it, have 
no valid ministry or ordinances, or to deny that 
any of their members may be saved. They are 
persuaded, that in the primitive church there were 
no Forms of Prayer used in public worship; and 
that the introduction of them is unwarranted and 
inexpedient ; yet I never heard of any one who con- 
sidered this as so essential an innovation, as either 
to doubt the piety of those who used forms, or 
even to pronounce it absolutely unlawful to unite in 
worship conducted by a liturgy. They know that 
kneeling at the Lord\s Supper^ and the doctrine of 
Transubstantiation came into the church together, 
and have no doubt that together they ought to have 
been discarded ; yet they do not imagine, that this 
mode of receiving is inconsistent with pious and 
acceptable communicating; much less that it vi- 
tiates the sacrament; and least of all, that it infers 
a belief in the grand popish error v/ith which it 
was originally connected. I have known Episcopa- 
lians to receive the sacred bread and wm^^ kneeling^ 
from the hands of a Presbyterian minister, when 
all the rest of the communicants were sitting ; and 
have no reason to suppose that any other Presby- 
terian minister M'ould have scrupled to comply 
with a similar application. 

It is to no purpose to say, '' that if these be the 
opinions of jure dhino Presbyterians, t'ney are in- 
consistent with themselves ; for that a belief that 



Doctrhie of Presbyterians* 5Z 

Presbyterianism was the apostolic form of church 
government, necessarily carries with it, on every 
principle of sober reasoning, a belief that there can 
be no church, no ministry without it." This con- 
clusion IS as illegitimate in reasoning, as it is false 
in fact. The Presb3^t€rians of v»'hom w^e are speak- 
ing, utterly disavow this doctrine which is, by in- 
ference, imputed to them ; and declare, that, as it 
is not deducible from their principles, so it makes 
no part of their creed. 

The warmest advocates of the divine right of 
Prelacy admit that a church may depart in many 
respects, from the primitive model, without for- 
feiting the title of a church of Christ? They 
consider the church of Rome as a true church of 
Christ, though a degenerate and corrupt one. In 
one of the Homilies^ of the Church of England^ 
drawn up by Archbishop Cranmer^ and the other 
Reformers, it is expressly declared, that that 
church is not only " idolatrous and unchristian ; 
^' not only an harlot^ as the scripture calleth 
" her, but also Vifoul^flthy^ old withered harlot; 
" the foulest and flthiest harlot, that ever was 
" seen ^. I do not contend for the decency of 
these epithets. That is no concern of mine. I 
state the real language of the church of England^ 
as deliberately expressed in her Standards. And 
yet, while high-churchmen solemnly declare their 
belief in the doctrine of these Homilies^ they ac- 

* Homily Against Peril of Idolatry. Part III. page 216. 
Edit. Oxford, 1802. 

E2 



54 LETtER U. 

Icnovvledge the cbarch of Rome to be a church of 
Christ ; trace their line of succession through her ; 
and uniformly acknowledge her ministry and ordi- 
nances to be valid. In fact, it is on the principle 
that it is lawful to depart from the exact pattern 
of the primitive church, with respect to rites, cere* 
monies, and discipline, that the church of England 
vindicates many things in her own system, which 
she acknowledges were neither enjoined nor prac- 
tised in the days of the Apostles. Nay, many of 
her sons, and especially those who advocate the 
doctrine of my opponents, do not scruple to affirm, 
that the whole system of ecclesiastical government 
and discipline is mutable ^", and may be lawfully 
modified according to human wisdom, excepting 
the single part, so dearly beloved, which respects 
the three orders of Clergy, Every thing else, in 
the external organization, they suppose may be 
altered, without affecting the essence of the church ; 
but to touch this part of the body, they consider as 
the invasion of its vital organ. 

Thus it appears, that the highest toned Jure di- 
vino Presbyterians do not lay any thing like the 
stress on their form of church government, that 
Dr. Boxvdeny Mr. Hoxv^ and oihtr jure divino Pre- 
latists do on the point of Episcopacy; that the 
charge brought against them that they un-church 
all who reject the Presbyterian government, is per- 
fectly unfounded ; not deducible from any of their 

•* See JSoohr's Ef^cksiastlcal I^ol'tVy passim-. 



Doctrhie of Fresbyterians, 5S 

principles, and totally disavowed by them; that 
their public standards, their judicial decisions, and 
their most esteemed writers, all with one voice, 
acknowledge that there are true churches, a regu- 
lar ministry, and valid ordinances, where Presbyte- 
rianism is wanting; and, of course, that the allega- 
tions of Dr. Bowden and Mr. How^ are not only 
unsupported by evidence, but brought forward di- 
rectly in the face of all legitimate evidence. When 
these gendemen, or either of them, shall produce a 
single volume or document, sanctioned by any 
Presbyterian church, or from the pen of any es- 
teemed Presbyterian divine, which contradicts my 
statement, I shall then, and not till then, acquit 
them of calumniating our venerable Church. 

. But these gentlemen will, perhaps, ask, " Do we 
not find in the writings of many Presbyterian di- 
vines, severe epithets^ expressive of strong disappro- 
bation^ applied to the Episcopal hierarchy ? Have 
we not actually pointed out some instances of this 
kind ?" Granted. And what then ? May I not see 
an egregious fault in an acquaintance, and reprove 
him sharply for it, Vvithout deeming it so great as 
to expunge his name from the list of my friends, or 
to pronounce him a bad man ? May we not con- 
sider and oppose as an error, that which we do not 
believe, at the same time, will destroy the charac- 
ter of a church ? I am sure that no offensive lan- 
guage directed against Episcopalians, is to be found 
in the Confession of Faith of our church, and very 
f^eldom in cur best writers. But if it were ether- 



56 LETTER II. 

wise, where shall we find language, to be compared 
on the score either of indelicacy or severity^ with 
that which the church of ^/2^o-/i?A2<3^ has formally di- 
rected against the church oi Rojne^^ while at the 
same time she acknowledged, and does still acknow- 
ledge, her ministry and ordinances to be valid. 

Dr. Bowdeii and Mr. Hgxv make much use of 
the society oi ^lakers in this controversy. They, 
ask me, whether, amidst all my professions of libe- 
rality, I can consistently with cur Confession of 
Faith^ acknowledge the ^mkers as a visible church 
of Christ ? And if not, how I can find fault with 
Episcopalians for not acknov/Iedging its ? My only 
reply to all their declamation on this subject shall 
be short. It is not a practical question. The so- 
ciety of Quakers do not profess to have an ordain- 
ed ministry, at all, in the sense of most other de- 
nominations of Protestants. — The question, then, 
whether we can acknowledge their ordinations, 
ministry, and sacraments to be valid, can never 
come before us ; for none of these things make any 
part of their ecclesiastical system; and, of course, 
can never be oflFered to us to receive our sanction. 
I consider, therefore, all that my opponents have 
said on this subject, as a vain effort to obscure the 
merits of the real question, and as inconclusive as 
it is irrelevant to the controversy. 

Dr. Bowden and Mr. Hoxv speak much of " co- 
venanted'^^ and " imcove72anted^^ mercy. The latter 

* See page So. 



Doctrine of Presbyterians. 57 

tandidly and repeatedly avows his belief, that all 
who are in communion with a church organized in 
the Episcopal form, are /;2 covenant with God ; and 
that all others^ without exception, are aliens from 
the commonwealth of Israel^ strangers to the cove- 
nant of promise^ and have no hope but in the gene« 
ral iincovenanted mercy of God. We certainly can 
iiave no objection to his informing us what is his 
creed, and we thank him for being so unreserved- 
ly communicative on the subject. But he goes 
further. He undertakes to say that Presbyterians, 
on their part, hold a similar opinion ; that they ex- 
clude from the Christian covenant all but Presbyte* 
rians ; nay, that they pronounce all who do not 
embrace " the rigid peculiarities of Calvinism^'*^ to 
be in an unregenerate state, and coolly consign 
them to " uncovenanted mercy." Had Mr. Hoxu 
asserted that all Presbyterians are zealous advo- 
cates of the divine mission of Mahornet^ it would 
have been, rather more ridiculous indeed, but not 
a whit more remote from fact than this statement. 
His position is not only not true, but there is not 
a shadow of foundation for it ; nor can he produce 
a single Presbyterian writer, of respectable charac- 
ter, who says any thing that can be reasonably con- 
strued as bearing the least resemblance to this doc- 
trine ^. 

* It is to be hoped that Presbyterians undei-stand the Gos- 
pel too well to speak of ** unco'venanted mercy^* at all. The 
phrase itself is unscriptural ; and if it convey any meaning-, 
tt is an erroneous one. Fallen creatures know of no mercy 



58 LETTER II. 

Presbyterians (I speak now of all that I have 
ever known or heard of, particularly the most 
rigid among them) Presbyterians, I say, believe, 
that according to th,^ tenor of the Covenant of 
Grace^ salvation is promised^ that is, secured by 
covenant engagement^ to all who sincerely repent 
of sin, and unfeignedly believe in the Lord Jesus 
Christ. Of course they consider all who bear 
this character, to whatever external church they 
may belong, or even if they bear no relation to 
any visible church, as in covenant with God, as 
interested in \)\^ great and precious promises^ and as 
in the sure and certain road to his lieavenly king* 

dom They know, ind<.*ed, and teach that it is 

the duty of all who believe in Christ, to connect 
themselves with his visible church ; they teach 
also, that receiving the seals of God's covenant 
and attending on all the ordinances of his house, 
are solemnly enjoined, and productive of essential 
advantages. Nay, they go so far as to pronounce 
that he who neglects these ordinances, when he 
is favoured with an opportunity of attending on 
them, gives, in ordinary cases, too much reason to 
fear, whatever may be his declarations to the contra- 
ry, that he has no real love to Christ. But still 
they do not, and without contradicting the scrip- 
tures, they cannot, teach that the means of religion 

but that which is pro'tpJsed or secured by the covenant of grace, 
\\\ Christ Jesus our Lord. If Dr. JSovjcIen and Mr. How have 
discovered any other Ji'ind or channel of divine mercy, I can 
only say, they have not found it in the Bible. 



Doctrine of Presbyterians. 59 

constitute its essence^ or that the seals of the cove- 
nant, y2?r;n the covenant itself. The seal on a bond, 
is not itself the contract ^ but only the evidence of it. 
In like manner, the seals of the Christian cove- 
nant, are not in themselves the promise or the en- 
gagement either on the part of God or man ; but 
are the constituted means of recognizing or ratify^ 
tng a covenant transaction, supposed to have pre- 
viously taken place in secret, when the person re- 
ceiving the seal, embraced the gospel, and cordial- 
ly devoted himself to Christ on the terms of the 
covenant. 

I repeat it then, the doctrine of all Calvinistic 
Presbyterians is, that everj^ one who loves the Lord 
Jesus Christ in sincerity, and maintains a holy life, 
whatever may be the mistakes into w^hich he may 
fall, or the prejudices against particular parts of 
evangelical truth and order which he may enter- 
tain ; whatever the disadvantages under which he 
may labour, with respect to his ecclesiastical con- 
nexions ; or even if he were placed In circum- 
stances in which he never saw a place of public 
worship, a miinister of the gospel, or a church of- 
ficer of any kind, in his life ; that every such per- 
son is in covenaJit with God, and has that title to 
salvation which is given by the promise of a faith- 
ful God to every sincere believer. How viiich 
error, hovvr much infirmity, how much deviation 
from the external order which God hath appointed 
in his house, is consistent with true faith, we know 
not, nor has any Presbyterian? with Vv'hose person 



M LETTER ir. 

or writings I ain acquainted, ever attempted to de- 
cide. But that every one who has sinc^ire faith in 
Christ, is in covenant with God, they, with one 
voice, proclaim and teach. 

This simple statement also refutes another asser- 
tion, which Mr. How permits himself, without the 
smallest foundation, to make and repeat. The as- 
sertion to which I allude, is conveyed in the follow- 
lowing terms. " All of you declare baptism and 
" the supper to be general condltiQiis of sahation; 
" representing them as seals^ of the covenant of 
^^ grace, without which, it is impossible to have 
" any ordinary or regular claim to the blessings of 
'' that covenant. Such as habitually neglect these 
^^ ordinances, saving a litde allowance for errory 
"you exclude from the kingdom of heaven. — 
" Intolerant and wretched bigots ! To give so 
" much importance to the ceremony of sprinkling 
^' water, or of receiving bread and wine ! And to 
" tell us tooj that it is impossible to have these or- 
" dinances, except at the hands of ministers Pres* 
'^ byterially ordained. How m.uch better is all 
'* this than the tale of Papal infallibility ! How far 
'' are you removed from catholic absurdity and 
'' arrogance!'' Letters^ p. 117. Mr. Hotv asserts 
that all Presbyterians believe and speak thus. But. 
can he find one that does ? I know of none ; and am 
confident there is none. Our Confession of Faith 
says no such thing. On the contrary, it expressly 
declares, that persons to whom these ordinances are 
never administered, may be saved; ?.nd that those 



Doctrine of Fresbi/terians. 61 

who do receive them maij perish. " But," says Mr. 
How^ " Your Confession of Faith represents Bap- 
*^ tism as the only mode of admission into the vi- 
" sible church ; it declares that out of the visible 
" church, there is no ordinary possibility of salva- 
" tion ; and it maintains that Baptism ought not 
" to be administered by any but a minister of the 
'^ gospel lavjfully ordained. Does it not follow 
" then, that without Baptism, there is " no ordi- 
" nary possibility of salvation ?'' No, it does not 
follow. His premises are incorrect, and his con- 
clusion is equally so. With all his confidence, he 
blunders at every step. Every one who has read 
our Confession of Faith^ knows its doctrine on this 
subject to be, that all zuho^profess the true religion^ 
are members of the visible church ; that the chiU 
dren of such persons, by virtue of their birth^ and 
of course anterior to Baptism^ are also members of 
the church ; and that Baptism is only the appoint- 
ed seal^ or solemn recognition and ratification of 
their membership. This is perfectly plain ; and 
it cuts up by the roots every pretence for the 
statement which Mr. How has made. 

With respect to Mr. Hovj*s direct and repeated 
assertion, that Calvinistic Presbyterians make a 
belief in the doctrine of " Election,*' and the 
other, " rigid peculiarities of Calvinism^^ essen- 
tial to our being in covenant with God, and that 
they represent all who do not receive these ** pecu- 
" liarities'* as given up to uncovenanted mercy, it 



62 LETTER II. 

is difficult to answer it as it deserves, without 
speaking of its author in a manner in which I 
cannot permit myself to speak of a Christian mi- 
nister. It is no arrogance to say that I am pro- 
bably as familiar with the writings of Calvinistic 
divines, as Mr. How : and I can solemnly declare, 
that to the best of my recollection, I never met 
with one who expressed such a sentiment, or who 
gave the least reason to suppose that he held it : 
nor do I believe that Mr. Hoxv ever saw or heard * 
of one. On the contrary, I have scarcely ever 
opened a volume by the most zealous Calvinist^ in 
which a question of this kind was discussed, with- 
out finding an acknowledgment, either express or 
implied, of xh^ sincere piety ^ and of course the co^ 
venant title to heaven^ of many who were far from 
being Calvinists. But you v/ill find, my brethren, 
before Vou have completed the perusal of these 
sheets, soine apology for Mr. How. You will 
clearly perceive that he is not acquainted with the 
writings of Calvin^ and that he does not understand 
the system of doctrines which is distinguished by 
the name of that great Reformer. 

Mr. How^ in his zeal to prove that Presbyteri- 
ans are even more uncharitable than such high- 
church-men as himself and others, endeavours to 
throw great odium on a clause in the 10th chapter 
of our Confession of Faith ^ which is in the follow- 
ing words — ^^ Much less can men, not professing 
** the Christian religion, be saved, in any other way 



Doctrhie of Presbyterians. 63 

'' whatsoever^ be they never so diligent to frame 
" their lives according to the light of nature, and 
^' the law of that religion which they do professj 
" and to assert and maintain that they may, is very 
*^ pernicious, and to be detested." All that these 
words are intended to assert, is, that none of our 
fallen race can be saved in any other way than 
through Christ. The slightest perusal is sufficient 
to ascertain that this is their real meaning. But, 
even if the language of the clause itself had left this 
point doubtful, all doubt would be removed by at- 
tending to another clause in the same chapter, and 
only five lines distant from that which we are consi- 
dering, which expressly recognizes the possibility of 
some being saved, who have never had an opportu- 
nity of hearing the gospel preached. The doctrine, 
then, of the passage alluded to by Mr. Hoxv^ is sim- 
ply this. That it IS false ^nd pernicious to teach that 
men may be saved in any other xvay^ than through 
the atoning sacrifice, and sanctifying spirit of 
Christ. A position in which one would imagine 
all professing Christians, except Socinians and Uni" 
versalistSj must without hesitation, concur. But Mr. 
How exceedingly dislikes it, and is determined to 
hold it up to detestation and abhorrence, as assert- 
ing that none who have not been favoured with the 
preaching of the gospel can possibly be saved ; and 
as consigning the whole heathen world to inevita- 
ble perdition. By what management does he at- 
tempt to do this ? By faithfully transcribing the 



64 LETTER II. 

clause? and laying it before his readers in a fair 
and unmutilated form ? Not at alL Had he done 
this, his purpose would have been defeated. Every 
reader would instantly have recognized in the Ian- 
guage of our Confession of Faith^ a perfect coinci- 
dence with that of the Scriptures *. But by a con- 
trivance, which it will hereafter be seen is not unu- 
sual with this gentleman, he first essentially alters the 
passage, and then presents it, regularly marked with 
inverted commas, as if it were the real language 
of the article. What that language infact^ is, you 
have already seen. Mr. How declares that it is as 
follows — " They who having never heard the Gos- 
" pel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe not in 
'^ him, cannot be saved, be they never so diligent 
" to frame their lives according to the light of na- 
" ture." Letters^ p. 25. Having thus taken out of 
the passage an important clause which it does con- 
tain, and added to it what it does not contain, he 
holds it up to his readers as consigning to inevita- 
ble perdition, the whole heathen world. And as- 
suming this as the acknowledged construction, he 
vehemently declaims against it as *' uncharitable," 
'^ cruel,'' a " position of deep-toned horror," and 
calculated to " fill the rational mind with dismay." 
But the most wonderful part of the story is yet 
to be told. It is a fact, that one of the Thirty- 

* See particukrly Acts. 4. 12. John 14. 6. John 17. 3. 
Gal 1. 6, r, S. 



Doctrine of Presbyierlam. 6J 

7ilne Articles of Mr. Howh own church, contahis 
precisely the same declaration that he, with so 
much violence, condemns in our Confession of Faith. 
The article referred to, is the eighteenth^ which is 
in the following words. " They also are to be had 
" accursed, that presume to say, that every man 
" shall be saved by the law or sect which he profes- 
" seth, so that he be diligent to frame his life ac- 
^' cording to that law and the light of nature. For 
" holy scripture doth set out unto us only the name 
" of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved." 
The only difference worthy of attention, is, that 
the Presbyterian Confession of Faith pronounces 
the doctrine^ that men may be saved otherwise 
than by Christ, " pernici^us'^'* and to be " detested.^^ 
Whereas, the Episcopal article, more harshly, de- 
clares, that the persons who hold it, are to be had 
accursed* This article Mr. Hoxu has solemnly 
subscribed, and the doctrine contained in it, 
he has canonically sworn to preach and support. 
And yet he declares '' he has no power to ex- 
'^ press the feelings with which this most de- 
" testable doctrine fills his bosom.'' To what 
can we ascribe this conduct ? I am unable to 
think of it w^ithout the deepest astonishment and 
horror ! 

In my introductory Letter, in a note, p. 17, I 

expressed myself in the following terms. " Se* 

^^ veral distinguished writers in Great-Britain, who 

" have lately espoused with much warmth, the 

F 2 



o6 LETTEJa lU 

" exclusive Episcopal notions under coDsideration , 
" do not scruple to assert, that all who " are in 
" communion with the Episcopal church, are in 
'* communion with Christ," and in the " sure 
" road to salvation/^ They deny that there is 
*' any pledged or covenanted mercy ; in other 
" words, that there are any projnises given in 
" the gospel to persons who are not in commu- 
*' nion with that church, however sincere their 
" faith and repentance, and however ardent their 
" piety. And, accordingly, they turn into ridi-^ 
" cule every attempt to distinguish between a 
^^ professing Episcopalian, and a real Christian." 
— With this passage Mr. How is much offended. 
He not only rebukes me with great severity for 
penning a paragraph so " calculated to deceive 
" and inflame my readers ;" but he goes further, 
and declares that the sentiment which I ascribe 
to the writers in question, is not held by them ; 
and that I " ought to know, and cannot but 
*^ know," that they do not hold it. Thus charg- 
ing nie in pretty direct terms with writing a 
known and deliberate falsehood. — p. 14, 15. 

As I had mentioned no names^ and as Mr. 
How^ of course, could not certainly know to 
what particular writers I alluded, it is somewhat 
singular that he should venture a contradiction 
with so much confidence and indecorum. But as 
neither delicacy nor caution enter into the plan 
of controversy which this gentleman has adopted, 
I no longer wonder at any extremes of his rash* 



Doctrine of Presbyterians^ 67 

ness or violence. The truth is, that in the pa- 
ragraph above stated, I have not only not inten" 
tionally misrepresented any one, but am also still 
persuaded that I fell into no real error. But, how- 
ever this may be, all that I said, was advanced on 
the authority of a respectable divine of the Church 
of England^ now living, who expresses himself in 
the following words. " Mr. Daubeny^ in like 
** manner, sees no difference between the true 
" church of Christ, and the national church ; 
" represents professed membership with this na- 
** tional society as forming the line of distinc- 
" tion between the world which lieth in wicked- 
" ness and a state of condemnation before God, 
'' and those who are in a state of sanctification 
" and salvation ; and speaks indiscriminately of 
^^ all who have been regularly baptized, and re- 
" main in the established communion, as " mem- 
" bers of Christ's body," " partakers of Christ's 
" spirit,*' the '* peculiar property of Christ," and 
" as having " a peculiar interest in him :" in 
" other words, as "translated from the world,'* 
" delivered from the powers of darkness," and 
" heirs with Christ of an eternal kingdom." 
" Guide to the Church, p. 15, 16, 171, 172, 234 
" and passim. " Every Christian," that is, every 
" professed Christian, he says again, after being 
" called to re-consider the subject, who is " living 
" in a state of communion with the church," 
^' namely, with that " visible society" of Chris- 
"^ tians, where the Episcopal form of govern- 



68 LETTER in 

*' ment is to be found, is in the sure road so sal- 
*' vationJ*^ Appendix^ Letter 7, 452. Ajitijaco- 
*' bin Review^ Feb. 1800, p. 145. The distinc- 
" tion between the national establishment, and 
" the true church of Christ, Mr. Daubeny 
" teaches, is '' unnecessary^" and a " false dis- 
" tinction." " That," he says, " may be a true 
*' church in which the pure word of God is not 
" preached." Appendix, p. 252, 475, 476, Mr. 
" Polwhele considers it among the greatest extra- 
" vagancies^ to think unfavourably of the state of 
^^ many, " who every Lord's day attend the ser- 
^' vice of the church." Letter to Dr. Hawker^ 
^' p. 38. Dr. Paley^ Dr. CV^/", and their admirers, 
'' teach that the scripture titles of " elect," " cal- 
" led," " saints," " being in Christ," &c. " were 
" intended in a sense common to all Christian 
*' converts," and that, " the application of such 
*' titles to distinguish individuals amongst us, the 
" professors of Christianity, from one another," 
•• argues the greatest ignorance and presumption. 
" Dr. Paley'^s Visitation Serm. at Carlisle , 1777 j p. 
*' 11, 12. Dr. Croffs preface to his Thoughts^ 
*^ &c. and Mr. Clapham\ Sermon. In further 
*' conformity to this doctrine, the scripture terms 
" and phrases, " conversion," " regeneration," the 
" becoming ^' dead to sin," and " alive from the 
*' dead," the being made " sons of God, from 
" children of wrath," these divines tell us, noxu 
** mean nothing^^ that is, as they explain it, " no- 
^^ thing to us^ or to any one educated in a Christian 



Doctrine of Presbyterians, 69 

'* cou7itry ^.'' What Mr. How himself may 
think of his own prudence, after reading these 
extracts, I know not ; but I should suppose that 
others could be at no loss what opinion to form on 
the subject. 

Mr. How refers frequently, and with much tri- 
umph, to a passage toward the close of my Letters 
in which he considers me as having advanced a 
claim as high and offensive as his own, and also, as 
having contradicted myself. The passage alluded 
to, is one which occurs in discussing the doctrine 
of Uninterrupted Succession^ and is in the following 
words. " If, as we have proved in the foregoing 
" Letters, the right of ordination, according to 
" Scripture and primitive usage, belongs to Presby^ 
" ters^ it is evident that the succession through 
" them^ is as valid as any other : or rather, to speak 
" more properly, it is only so far as any succession 
'^ flows through the line of Presbyters^ that it is 



* Overton's True Churchman ascertained, 2d Edit. p. 
115 — 118. It will probably be contended by Mr. Ho'^a and 
his friends in this controversy, that Mr. Overton, though a 
j^ood Churchman^ is not accurate in his representation. He 
has indeed been loaded with much abuse by many for his 
fidelity. But it unluckily happens, that the editors of the 
Christian Observer^ though warm Episcopalians, and men of 
great talents and learning, fully justify Mr. Overton in the 
substance of his representation. They think, it is true, that 
he scarcely does justice to Mr. Daubeny ; but they acknow- 
ledge at the same time, that Mr. D. has too frequently ex- 
pressed himself in a manner calculated to give cemitenance 
to the opinions ascribed to him. 



?0 LETTER II. 

" either regular or valid. It is the laying on of 
" the hands of the Presbytery^ that constitutes a 
'^ scriptural ordination ; and it is because Episco- 
'' pal Bishops are Presbyters^ and assisted in all 
^* ordinations by other ^Presbyters^ that we consider 
^' their ordaining acts, on the principles of Scrip- 
" ture and primitive usage, as valid." In this pas- 
sage, Mr. H. asserts, that I have pronounced 
Presbyterian ordination alone to be valid, and, of 
course, have unchurched all who are destitute of it. 
Now as the whole strain of my volume is of a dif- 
ferent kind ; and as, in various parts of it, an oppo- 
site doctrine is explicitly avowed and maintained, 
caiidour, I think, should have dictated to this gen- 
tleman a more favourable construction, even sup- 
posing my language to admit of that which he 
puts upon it. But, in truth, when this passage is 
examined, it will be found that the doctrine which 
it contains, is so far from being high-toned and of- 
fensive, that it is taking the very lowest ground 
that any denomination of Christians, who hold to 
a regular ministiy at all, have maintained. What 
does it say ? It affirms that ordination by Presby^ 
ters is valid, and that it is the only ordination which 
the Scriptures warrant. Now the Presbyterian Pas" 
tors^ the Episcopal Bishops^ the Ministers of the In- 
dependent, Lutheran, Methodist, and Baptist church- 
es, are all Presbyters ; and, of course, are all empow- 
ered to ordain. The doctrine of the above cited 
passage, therefore, instead of being high-toned or ex- 
clusive, recognizes as valid the ordinations of every 



Doctrine of Presbyterians. 71 

church on earth, which receives and acts on the 
principle that clerical ordination of any kind is ne- 
cessary. 

But after all, how has the Episcopal claim been 
construed by impartial judges? If, as these gende- 
men assert, the most zealous and high-toned advo- 
cates of Prelacy, do not lay greater stress on their 
particular form of church order, than Presbyterians 
do on theirs ; if they make no greater nor more of- 
fensive claims ; how has it come to pass that the con- 
trary has been, by all parties, so generally under- 
stood and acknowledged ? How has it happened, 
that every respectable Presbyterian who ever wrote 
on this subject, has utterly disclaimed sentiments in 
anywise resembling those of the Jure divino Prela- 
tists ? How has it come to pass that many warm 
friends of Episcopacy have reprobated the claims of 
some of their ow^n denomination, as peculiar to them- 
selves, as well as groundless and offensive ? How 
could such men as Archbishop Wake^ be so grossly 
deceived ? He^ in a letter to a Presbyterian Minis- 
ter of Geneva^ in the year 1719, pronounced the high- 
churchmen of his day, for advancing exactl}' such 
claims as those of Dr. Boxcden and Mr. Hoxv^ to be 
madmen.^ Was this respectable prelate ; were the 
great body of the most eminent writers, both Pres- 
byterian and Episcopal, who have treated of this 
subject for the last two hundred years, all ignorant 



* See my former Lettersf p. 273, 274. 



72 LETTER II. 

and mistaken ? I must be allowed to believe that 
they were at least as learned, and discerning, and 
that they understood the points in dispute, at least 
as well as either Dr. Bozvden or Mr. How. 

Dr. Bowden^ and Mr. Hoxu^ more than once ac- 
cuse me of departing from the doctrine of our Cori" 
fession of Faith concerning the christian ministry ; 
and express some apprehensions that I may be call- 
ed to an account by my own church, for deviating 
from her standards. The former of these gentle- 
men also observes, that, before he saw my Letters^ 
he had supposed me to be a Presbyterian ; but that 
to such Presbyter ianism as mine both Calvin and 
Knooc were entire strangers. The best refutation 
®f these charges will be found in the facts exhibited 
in the following sheets ; the slightest attention to 
which will convince you, that, until my opponents 
become better acquainted with our Confession of 
Faith^ and also with the writings of Presbyterian 
Reformers, they are but ill qualified to pronounce 
what system agrees or is at variance with these great 
authorities. 

But although I am not conscious of departing 
cither from the letter or the spirit of that Confession 
of Faith which I have solemnly subscribed; and 
although I am confident that my Presbyterianism is 
substantially the same with that of Calvin and Knox; 
yet let us remember that we are to call no man^ or 
body of men, Master on earth. One is our Master j 
even Christ. His word is the sole standard by 
which, as Christians, or as Churches, we must stand 



Doctrint of Presbyterians. To 

or fall* Happy will it be for us, if we can appeal to 
the great Searcher of hearts, that we have not follow- 
ed the traditions and inventions of men, but the sure 
word of prophecy^ which is given us to be a light to 
ourfeet^ and a lamp to our pathy to guide us in the 
way of peace! 



( 74 



LETTER IIL 



Testimony of Scripure. 



An the second Letter of my former series, I en- 
deavoured to establish the principle, that the only 
testimony by which the controversy in question 
ever ought to be, or can be decided, is that of 
Scripture. The word of God is the only perfect 
and infallible rule of faith and practice. The mo- 
ment we quit this ground, we are plunged into all 
the uncertainty of tradition, and into all the con- 
fusion of contradictory testimony. The moment 
we quit this ground, the defence of Protestantism 
against the Papists is impossible. In this general 
principle, our Episcopal brethren concur. They 
acknowledge that the question before us is a mat- 
ter oi fact^ to be ascertained by a sound interpre- 
tation of Scripture. And yet, for the most part, 
they have no sooner made the acknowledgment, 
than they contradict themselves, by setting human 
authority above the inspired volume. 

In this inconsistent course Dr. Bowden has sig- 
nalized himself. He has, indeed, pursued it with 
a degree of boldness which is truly rare. |Hc 
does not think it necessary even to save appearan- 



Testimony of Scriptnrt* 75 

ces. Instead of assigning Xo Scripture the first 
and highest place; instead of beginning with it, 
and pernnitting it to stand on its own proper emi- 
nence, he begins with the Fathers! Nor is this 
all. As if afraid of examining and exhibiting 
the testimony of the Fathers in their jiatural or- 
der^ from the apostolic age downwards, he begins 
with the Fathers of the fourth century ; reasons 
backward ; assumes the corrupt principles and lan- 
guage of that age as genuine, and then employs 
them to interpret the primitive writers ; and thus 
endeavours to make his readers believe that the 
order of the Church was the same in the fourth^ 
that it had been in the first century ; and that the 
words bishops elder^ deacon^ meant exactly the 
same thing in the days of Eusebiiis^ Easily and y^- 
rome^ that they had done in the days of the Apos- 
tles. I thank Dr. Bowden for the important con- 
cessions which this course of reasoning taciUy 
discloses. I thank him for the manifest unwilling, 
ness which he discovers to encounter either the 
testimony of Scripture alone, or the testimony of 
the early Fathers alone* His very arrangement 
of evidence sneaks more than volumes. Of the 
fairness of this arrangement, I say nothing. No 
reader of the smallest discernment needs a single 
remark to aid him in judging of this point. But I 
could scarcely have asked for a more humiliating 
confession of the weakness of his cause, and of 
his distressing consciousness that neither Scripture 
nor early antiquity will bear him out in his claims, 



76 LETTER III. 

than is to be found in this management, which he, 
no doubt, considered as a master stroke of policy. 
But this gentleman goes a step further. After 
conducting his readers through a catalogue of quo- 
tations, placed in retrograde order, from the fourth 
century upward to the apostles ; — after presenting 
to them a corresponding series of pictures in an 
inverted, and therefore deceptive light ; — and after 
bringing them, wearied and perplexed, to the divi- 
ding line between the Fathers and the canon of 
Scripture, he expresses himself in the following 
terms — " As Episcopacy appears from a cloud of 
" witnesses to be the government of the church 
" at the close of the apostolic age, it can never 
^' be admitted that any thi7ig in the New Testament 
" militates against this fact** Letters^ i. p. 240. 
The plain English of this declaration is, "The 
*' controversy is to be decided by the Fathers. 
" In approaching the inspired volume, we are 
** previously to take for granted that it does not, 
" and cannot contain any thing contrary to their 
" testimony. And even if it appears to contain 
" facts or principles inconsistent with their wri- 
" tings, we are to draw our conclusions from the 
" latter rather than the former. Were the scrip- 
" tures to teach otherwise than the Fathers, we 
" could not believe them." — I do not say that this 
doctrine is, in so many words, avowed by the 
reverend Professor; nor even that he distinct* 
ly recognizes such a monstrous position in his own 
mind : but I will say, that such is the spirit of the 



Testimony of Scripture* 7t 

principle which he lays down, and that I verily be- 
lieve him to have been governed by it in all his 
reasonings. 

But although my opponents discover so much 
reluctance to be judged by the law and the testiyyio* 
7iy^ I hope, my brethren, we shall never so far 
forget our character as Christians and Protestants^ 
as to suffer our faith or practice to be tried by any- 
other test. I will, therefore, request your serious 
and impartial attention to some further remarks on 
the scriptural evidence relative to the subject be- 
fore us. — You will not expect me, however, again 
to go over the whole ground of the scriptural ar- 
gument. I shall only advert to a few points on 
w^hich either the most plausible or the most ex- 
ceptionable strictures have been made on our prin- 
ciples, as formerly advanced and defended. 

I again assert, then, that there is not to be found 
in the whole New Testament a single doctrine or 
fact, which yields the least solid support to the 
cause of prelacy ; but that, on the contrary, the 
whole strain of the evangelical records is favour- 
able to the doctrine of ministerial parity. 

Dr. Bowden still insists that the Angels of the 
seven Asiatic churches, spoken of in Rev. ii. and 
iii. were no other than diocesan bishops. But re» 
ally he does little more than assert and re-assert 
this, without producing any proof that deserves 
to be considered even as plausible. I had asked, 
" Is it certain that by these Angels are meant /«• 
G2 



78 LETTER III, 

" dividual ministers?'*^ Dr. Bozudefi replies, "I 
" think there can be no doubt of it.'* A very 
strong argument, it must be acknowledged! But 
unfortunately there is much doubt of it. Some 
of the most learned and able Episcopalians that 
ever lived, have not only doubted^ but denied it. 
And Dr. Mason has lately shown, with a force of 
argument which, in my opinion, no impartial mind 
can resist, that the title of Angel in this portion of 
scripture, is a symbolical term, intended to express 
the ministry collectively of each of those churches ; 
that both the phraseology and matter of the ad* 
dresses made to the angels are, in several instan- 
ces, such as could only be directed to collective 
bodies ; and that to consider the title as designat- 
ing an individual^ is a construction attended not 
only with insuperable difficulty, but with manifest 
absurdity ^. 

But, admitting that this term designates indi* 
vidual ministers, does it follow that they can be 
no other than diocesan bishops ? By no means. 
The angels of Ephesus^ Smyrna^ &c. might have 
^been, as was observed in my former Letters^ the 
Moderators of the Presbyteries of those cities re- 
spectively \ or they might have been the Senior pas^ 

* See that gentleman's very luminous and able Heviciv 
of the Episcopal H^ssays, in the Christian's Magazine. This 
work, which I consider as one of the ablest periodical pub- 
lications that ever appeared, ought to be in the hands of 
every one who wishes to attaiti clear and sound views of 
^* Evangelical truth and order." 



Testhnony of Scripture. 79 

tors^ to whom, on account of their standing and 
age, all communications intended for the churches 
in which they ministered, were, by common con- 
sent, directed. The Rector of Trinity Churchy in 
the city of New-T^ork^ h2LsJive congregations under 
his pastoral care, and is aided by the labours of 
several assistant clergymen ; yet this rector is not, 
as such, a bishop ; nor are his assistant clergymen in- 
ferior in order to him. The whole city of Edin^ 
burgh in Scotland^ is one Parish^ while there are near 
twenty churches, and more than twenty ministers, 
"within and belonging to that parish ; still all these 
ministers are ecclesiastically equal, excepting that 
there is a Moderator of the city Presbytery, who has 
certain powers vested in him, for convening the body, 
and preserving order during the sessions ; and to 
whom, also, all letters are directed, and all commu- 
nications made. And yet this is not considered as at 
all infringing the doctrine of Presbyterian parity.—- 
In truth, neither the title of Angel^ nor the addresses 
made to those on whom it was bestowed, nor any of 
th^ powers implied in these addresses, give the least 
countenance to the system of prelacy ; and to sup- 
pose that they do, is as gross an instance of beg- 
ging the whole question in dispute, as can well be 
produced. 

Dr. Bowden appears, indeed, to be serisible, that 
the Scriptures, left to speak for themselves, by no 
means decide that the angeh in question were 
prelates: he, therefore, has recourse to Irenceus^ 
Clemens of Alexandria^ Eiisebiiis^ Ambrose^ &c. to 



LETTER III. 



help him out in his difficulty. Theyy it seems, 
assert that these angels were the bishops of the 
respective churches mentioned in connection with 
their names. But supposing these Fathers to be, 
in all respects, credible witnesses ; and supposing, 
too, that their assertion is founded, not on con- 
jecture, but authentic records; it still remains to 
be ascertained in what sense they use the word 
bishop. What kind of bishops do they mean? 
Such bishops as the Presbyterian, and the great 
body of the Reformed Churches, allow to have 
existed in the days of the apostles, and still retain ? 
or such as our Episcopal brethren contend for ? 
Dr. Bowden undertakes to assert that they were of 
the latter kind; but he says it without authority; 
for the Fathers whom he quotes as witnesses, do 
not say so. They might have been scriptural bi^ 
shops^ without, in the least degree, serving the Epis- 
copal argument. 

Dr. Bowden endeavours to press the learned 
Blondel into his service, by representing him as 
admitting that the angels of the Asiatic churches 
are addressed as " having jurisdiction over both 
•' clergy and laity;'* and thus by implication as ac- 
knowledging the existence of diocesan Episcopacy 
in the apostolic age. This is a mistake. Blondel 
says no such thing. After investigating this subject 
perhaps as profoundly as any man ever did, he tells 
us, that during the apostolic agei and for a consi- 
derable time after. Bishop and Presbyter were re- 
ciprocally one and the same ; that these were com- 



Testimony of Scripture. 81 

bined into Classes or Presbyteries ; that the eldest 
minister^ pastor^ or bishop belonging to the Presby- 
tery, was, by virtue of his seniority, constantly 
the moderator ; that when he died, the next in age 
succeeded him, of course^ and continued to hold 
the place during life. — " These senior pastors," 
says he, " had a certain singular and peerless 
" power, such a power as all moderators^ after 
" whatsoever manner constituted, ever had, and 
" ever will have, belonging to them. Neither was 
" the moderator of any of these sacred colleges, 
"^ chief among his colleague Presbyters, as a 
" Presbyter, or as one placed in higher order 
" above all the other Presbyters ; but as the 
" eldest and first ordained pastor. Nor did the 
" rest as Presbyters^ but as younger Presbyters, 
" and afterwards ordained, yield the moderator- 
" ship to him. His office was to exhort the bro- 
*' therhood ; to war a good warfare ; to commend 
" them to God by prayer ; to gather the Presby- 
" tery ; to give them a good example ; and to de- 
" clare himself to be a diligent messenger of 
" God to mankind. And, therefore, as Christ 
*' does in his admonitions to the angels of the 
*' Asiatic churches, both the good and the evil 
" deeds of the churches might be imputed to 
" these moderators." — And again he says, " ii- 
*' nus^ as he was a bishops had for his colleagues 
" Clement and Anacktus^ who were shortly after 
" ordained bishops, with himself, in the same 
" church of Rome. But as he was the exarch 



82 LETTER III. 

" or moderator of the brethren^ he neither had, 
" nor could have any colleagues^ (seeing the mo* 
" deratorship can only fall to one person at once) 
" but only successors. There was a plurality of 
" Bishops, Presbyters, or Governors, at the same 
** time, and in the same church. All these Pas- 
" tors or Bishops, on the very account of their 
*' Presbyterate^ were endued with equal poxver and 
" honour. The moderator was subject to the 
*^ Presbytery^ and obeyed its commands with no 
" less submission than did the meanest of their 
** number. He had the chief power in the col- 
** lege of Presbyters, but had no poxver over the 
** college itself." And, as if this learned man 
had been aware of every cavil that ignorance or 
sophistry could suggest, he expressly compares 
these ancient moderators^ with the moderators of 
Presbyteries^ in the reformed churches of Scotland 
and France^ and assigns to the former no more 
power or pre-eminence than belongs to the latter. 
Blondelli Apolog. Prcefat. pag. 6. 7. 18. 35. S^. 
I make no comment on Dr. Boruden^s perver- 
sion of these plain declarations. If he fell into it 
ignorantly^ he is to be excused ; if wilfully^ no 
reader will be at a loss for appropriate reflections. 

Of the same character, and equally destitute of 
force, is all that Dr. Boxvden has advanced to show- 
that Timothy and Titus were prelates. After fill- 
ing about thirty pages with what he calls his proofs 
of this point, he will really be found, when closely 



Testimony of Scripture, ^^ 

examined, to have done litde more than beg the 
whole question in dispute. 

He insists that Timothy and Titus were not sent 
to Ephesus and Crete in the character of Evange^ 
lists; that they had finished all the labours which 
belonged to them in this character, before they 
went thither ; and that their principal duties in 
those places were of an higher kind, and appropri- 
ate to an higher office. Nay, he formally sets it 
down, in a long catalogue, as one of my *^ un- 
" founded assertions," that I represent them as 
acting in that capacity in the Ephesian and Cretian 
churches. Has Dr. Boxvden ever read that por- 
tion of the New Testament which is called the 
Second Epistle to Timothy ? Does not the apostle 
Faul say to Timothy^ in that Epistle, Do the work 
of an Evangelist P And was this written before he 
went to Ephesus? Truly, when this gemleman 
can permit himself, with so little ceremony, to 
contradict an inspired Apostle, I need not wonder 
that others fare so roughly in his hands. Nor will 
it afford any relief to his cause, to cavil about the 
meaning of the word evangelist. Whatever it 
then meant, or may noxv mean, it is certain that 
Paul applied it to Timothy^ and that after he had 
been sent on his Ephesian mission. And if it 
were applied to Timothy^ no good reason can be 
assigned why it may not, with equal propriety, be 
applied to Titus. In fact, if it be conceded that 
the former was an Evangelist^ and acted as such, 
when the Epistles directed to him were written. 



84 LETTER III. 

the friends of prelacy can have no interest in con- 
tending that the latter bore a different character ; 
for the same reasoning, in substance, applies to 
both. 

But Dr. Bowden still contends, that Timothy 
and Titus were Diocesan Bishops, because they 
were empowered to ordain others to the work of 
the Gospel Ministry ? Shall we never have done 
with this begging of the whole question, in a man- 
ner so unworthy of logicians and divines ? Sup- 
pose they were empowered to ordain ? What 
then ? Do we not consider Presbyters as invested 
with this power ? And is it not the great object of 
Dr. BoxvderHs book to show that it was otherwise ? 
Why, then, does he attempt to impose upon his 
readers by taking the main point for granted ? Let 
him first prove that, in the primitive church, none * 
were permitted to ordain, but an order of minis- 
ters superior to Presbyters, and then his argu- 
ment from the fact of Timothy and Titus having 
been invested with the ordaining power, will be 
conclusive \ but until he shall have established the 
former, which neither he, nor any other man, has 
done, or can do, the latter will be considered, by 
every discerning reader, as worse than trifling. 

Dr. Bowden and his friends also lay great stress 
on another point. They take for granted that 
there had been Elders (or Presbyters) ordained by 
the apostle Paul himself, both at Ephesus and 
Crete^ before Timothy and Titus were sent to those 
places. Assuming this as a fact, they say, these 



Testimony of Scripture, 85 

Presbyters, on Presbyterian principles, must have 
been invested with the ordaining power ; but if 
this were so, why were others sent on so long a 
journey, to perform that which persons on the spot 
could have done as well ? Here, again, every thing 
is taken for granted. Where did Dr. B. learn that 
there had been Presbyters fixed, either in Ephesus 
or Crete^ before Timothy or Titus went thither ? 
The sacred history says no such thing. With 
what face, then, can any man undertake to found 
his whole argument on a mere assumption ? It is 
certain that the Epistle to Titus contains a direc- 
tion to ordain Elders in every city. There were, 
therefore, some cities, at least, which were not fur^- 
nished with the requisite number, and probably 
with none at all. But admitting that there were 
Elders already ordained both at Ephesus and 
Crete^ still the argument is good for nothing. 
That some portions of those churches were unfur- 
nished with ministers of any kind, and that they 
were all in a comparatively unorganized and im^ 
xpature state, is perfectly manifest from the whole 
strain of the Apostle's language concerning them. 
Was it unnatural, on Presbyterian principles, that 
in this state of things, special missionaries should be 
sent among them ; men well known as possessing 
the entire co^ifidence of the Apostle ; fully instruct- 
ed in their duty ; and qualified to travel from place 
to place, and set in order the things which were 
xvanting ? Might not many prudential considera- 
t.ions have rendered it expedient to send such 

n 



^ LETTER IIU 

eminent characters from a distance, rather than t© 
select men of less distinguished and commanding 
reputation on the spot, to perform a service as de- 
licate as it was arduous ? In fact, this is precisely 
the course which has been, more than once, pursu- 
ed, in Presbyterian churches, when they were in 
an unsettled state, without any one ever dreaming 
that it infringed the doctrine of ministerial parity ; 
or that it implied any deficiency of power in those 
ministers who resided nearer the scene of action. 

But Dr. Bowden further contends, that Timo* 
thy and Titus v/ ere empowered to ordain alone; 
that is, that in the ordinations which they perform- 
ed at Ephesus and Crete^ there were no other ordain- 
ers joined with them ; and hence he infers that the 
Presbyterian doctrine cannot be true, because our 
rules do not admit of ordination by a single Pres- 
byter. Here, once more, this dextrous disputant 
takes for granted the very thing to be proved. 
Who informed him that Timothy was the sole or- 
dainer at Ephesus^ and Titus at Crete f The Epis- 
tles to those Evangelists do not say so. Is he sure 
that they had not travelling companions, of equal 
power with themselves, who united with them in 
^very ordination ? Can he determine for what pur- 
pose Mark travelled with Timothy ; and Zenas and 
Apollos with Titus ? Or can he undertake to say 
that these persons never joined in setting apart 
others to the ministry ? Dr. B. is confident there 
had been Presbyters ordained, both at Ephesus 
and Crete before these Evangelists went thither. 



Testimony of Scripture. 97 

Now, if there were such Presbyters in those 
churches, will he venture to assert, that one or 
TXiOYQ of these were not always joined with TimO" 
thy and Titus in ordaining other Presbyters ^ ? In 
short, neither Dr. B. nor any other man, knows 
any thing about these matters ; and yet he assumes 
facts, and argues upon them with as much confi- 
dence, as if h6 were perfectly acquainted with 
every minute particular. 

This gentleman, however, still pleads, that di- 
rections about ordaining ministers, and regulating 
the affairs of the church, were given to Timothy 
and Titus alone ; that we hear of no others joined 
with them in those instructions ; and that we have 
no right to suppose there were such. This plea 
does not deserve an answer; but it shall have 
one. Suppose one of our Presbyteries or Synods 

* Dr. Bofoden appears to think it strange that I suggest 
the possibility that some of the Presbyters of Ephesus and 
Crete might have been united with Timothy and Titus in 
their ordaining acts ; when I had before represented it as 
utterly uncertain whether there were such Presbyters in 
existence, and as rather probable that there were not. But 
there is no inconsistency here. I only mean to show that ' 
Dr. B. does not know whether there ^ere^ or v)ere not such 
Presbyters ; and that he can gain nothing by either supposi- 
tion. If there were 7ione such at Ephesus or Crete, before 
these Evangelists were sent, then a fundamental argument 
in favour of the prelatical character of Timothy and Titus is 
destroyed. If there "mere sucli, then they might have assist- 
ed, for aught we know, in every ordination : and then another 
boasted argument on the same side falls to the ground. 
Whichever supposition is adopted, it is equally fatal. 



88 LETTER III. 

were to send out a company of two or three mis- 
sionaries ; and, for the sake of convenience, were 
to convey their instructions in the form of a Letter 
to the oldest and most prudent of the number ; 
would this individual have reason to consider him- 
self as a person of a superior order^ on account of 
such a circumstance ? Again, when we ordain a 
minister, the person who firesides in the ordination 
generally recites to the newly admitted brother 
many passages from the Epistles to Timothy and 
Titiis^ seldom omitting, in particular, the injunc- 
tion^ — Lai/ hands suddenly on no man. But no mi- 
nister ever considered this mode of address, as 
constituting him the sole ordainer in any case in 
which he should afterwards act. It would be as 
reasonable to say, that, because the Apostle gave 
Timothy direction about public preaching, there^ 
fore HE alone was empowered to preach ; or, be- 
cause he was instructed with respect to some parts 
of public prayer^, therefore he only was allowed 

* By the way it is not a little remarkable that the Apostle 
should content Iiimself with giving Thnothy only general di- 
rections with respect to public prayer, and even these only with 
regard to some of the objects of petition. Where were the 
Liturgies of those times ? Had Foriins of Prayer been so in- 
dispensably necessary, or, at least, so pre-eminently im^por- 
tant, as our Episcopal brethren, tell us they are, and always 
have been, why did not Paul, or some other of the Apostles, 
furnish the churches with Liturgies written by themselves, 
and under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost ? 
How shall we account for it, that instead of sending Timo- 
thy a For7n, he only laid down for him a few general words 



Testimony of Scripture, 8^ 

10 pray. But there would be no end to such ab- 
surdities. It is really wonderful that gentlemen 
who appear to be serious, should lay so much 
stress on arguments, much better calculated to 
pour ridicule on their cause, than to afford it effi« 
cient aid. 

But, admitting that Timothy and Titus each 
acted as sole ordainers at Ephesus and Crete — the 
probability is, that they did not ; but, supposing it 
proved that they did^ it does not affect the ques- 
tion in dispute. Although Presbyterians,?wishing 
to conform as perfectly as possible to Scriptural 
example, require a plurality of ministers to be 
present, and to lay on their hands in ordination ; 
yet I have no reason to suppose that any Presbyte- 
rian minister or church, would consider an ordina- 
tion performed, in a case of necessity, by a single 
Presbyter, as null and void. Supposing it proved, 
therefore, that an inspired Apostle, in a new and 
unsettled state of the church, sent forth Evange- 
lists singly to preach, ordain, and organize church- 
es, it would establish nothing, either way, material 
to the present controversy. 

Every thing, therefore, that Dr. Boxvden has ad- 
vanced to establish the prelatical character of Ti- 
mothy and Titus^ is perfectly nugatory. It is all 
mere assumption, instead of proof; and were it 

of direction ? But this is not the only instance in which the 
Apostles appear to have been of a different mind from some 
modern churchmen. 

H 2 



^^ LETTER III. 

not for the respectable character of the author, 
would be totally unworthy of reply. He has no 
where proved that these ministers went to Ephesics 
and Crete in a higher character than that of itine' 
rant Presbyters. He has no where proved that 
they were the fixed pastors or bishops of the 
churches which he undertakes to assign to them. 
He has no where proved tliat there were Presby- 
ters in those churches, before these Evangelists 
were sent thither, who might, on Presbyterian 
principles, have performed the rite of ordination^ 
without the trouble and expense of sending spe- 
cial missionaries to so great a distance. He has 
sio where proved that Timothy or Titus was, either 
of them, the sole ordainer in any case. He has no 
where, in short, established a single fact concern- 
ing either of them, v/hich has the least appearance 
of prelatical superiority. Even if he could estab- 
lish these facts, his point would not be gained. 
He would, after all, he obliged to show, that they 
took place in a regular and established and not 
in a new 2iTid unsettled st^tc of the church; and 
that they were intended to serte, in every mi-^ 
nute particular, as precedents.. But he has not 
proved, and cannot prove, either the one or the 
other. I therefore repeat, with increased confi-r 
dence, the closing sentence of the discuission of 
this subject in my former Letters. " The argu- 
^' ment which our Episcopal brethren derive from 
^> Timothy and Titus is absolutely worth nothing ; 
^* and after all the changes that may b€ rung upon; 



Testimony of Scripitire-. 91 

" It, and all the decorations with which it may 
" be exhibited, it amounts only to a gratuitous as- 
*' sumption of the whole point in dispute." 

As to the testimony adduced from the Fathers^ 
to establish the prelatical character of Timothy 
and Titus^ it is more, much more, suited, in the 
view of all intelligent readers, to discredit than to 
aid the Episcopal cause. I had quoted from Dr. 
Whitby, an eminent Episcopal divine, the follow- 
ing passage.. — " The great controversy concerning 
" this, and the Epistle to Timothy is, whether 
" Timothy and Titus were indeed made Bishops, 
" the one of Ephesus^ and the pro-consular Asia; 
" the other of Crete. Now of this matter I con- 
" fess I can find nothing in any writer of the Jirst 
" three centuries^ nor any intimation that they 
" bore that name." Dr. Bowden virtually concurs 
in this statement of Dr. Whitby ; for though he 
speaks with much confidence of the testimony of 
the Fathers on this point, yet the first authentic 
witness*, among the Fathers, whom he brings 

• Dr. BoKiden does, indeed, adduce one witness, "whom he 
places before Eusebius, in the following words. " From a 
" fragment of a treatise by Polycrates, Bishop of JEpkesvs-, 
** towards the close of the second century. This fragment 
** is preserved in Fhotius's Bibliotheca, and quoted by Arch- 
** bishop Usher in liis discourse on Episcopacy. In that 
** fragment it is said, that ** Timothy was ordained Bishop 
** of Ephesus by the great Faul.** Nobody has ever seen 
the original work of Polycrates; but Photius, who was Pa- 
triarch of Constantinople, toward the close of the ninth cen- 
tury, has preserved, it s|€ms, a fragment of H in his £ib^h 



ft! LETTER III* 

forward is Ensebius^ who says, " it Is related that 
" Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus.^'^ Now 
Eusebius does indeed say so ; but he also declares, 
generally, that his sources of information were ex- 
ceedingly scanty and uncertain ; and, in particular, 
he confesses, that it was not easy to say, who were 
left Bishops of the several churches, by the Apos- 
tles, except so far as might be gathered from the 
Acts of the Apostles^ and the Epistles of FauL 
Eccks. Hist. Lib. iii. Cap. 4. Here, then, is the 
sum of the evidence from the Fathers^ as to this 
point. Eusebius stands first on the list. He quotes 
as his authority? the New Testament* All the 
others, as Ambrose^ Epiphanius^ Jerome^ Chrysos* 
tom^ &c. follow Eusebius, The fathers, then, virtu- 
ally confess that they knew no more of the matter 
than we do ; and of course their whole testimony 
is, to us, perfectly worthless. 

But some of the Fathers speak on this subject 
in a manner that is somewhat unfortunate for the 
Episcopal cause. On the one hand, several of 
them represent Timothy and Titus^ and especially 
the former, as more than a single Bishop, as bear- 
ing the dignity of an Archbishops or Metropolitan. 



^rheca. This Bibliotheca has been seetij and is quoted, w6 
are told, by Archbishop Usher ^ " in his Discourse on Epis- 
" copacy." But as Dr. B. has no reference, by means of 
which this fragment may be found, either in the *' Biblio' 
thecuy^ or in the " Discourse,'^* I consider myself as absolv- 
ed from all obligation to pay it the least attention. Did not 
Dr. B. promise to act in a mror^ <* scholar-like'* manner ? 



Testimony of Scripture. $3 

Now, as Dr. Bowden^ and his friends, acknow- 
ledge that there were no Archbishops in the Apos- 
tle's days, they must of course consider this tes- 
timony as false and worthless. On the other hand, 
one of the Fathers quoted by Dr. Bowden^ (Chry- 
sostomj in his Commentary on Titus i. 5. speaks 
of that Evangelist in the following clear and de- 
cisive terms : " That thou may est ordain Elders^ 
'* says the Apostle : he means Bishops. In every 
^' city^ says he, for he would not have the whole 
'* Island committed to one man ; but that every 
" one should have and mind his own proper cure ; 
" for so he knew the labour would be easier to 
'* him, and the people to be governed would have 
" more care taken of them ; since their teacher 
" would not run about to govern many churches ; 
" but would attend to the ruling of one only, and 
" so would keep it in good order." 

Here Chrysostom expressly declares, that Titus 
^was not the Bishop of all Crete ; that he was sent, 
not to take the fixed pastoral charge of the Island, 
but to place its churches under a permanent and 
regular ministry ; that the Apostolic direction was to 
set a Bishop over every particular church : and that 
a single church was quite enough for a Scriptural 
Bishop to have under his care. In short, the 
whole passage is so entirely Presbyterian in its 
strain, that its force in our favour can be overlook- 
ed by none. 

But one of the most extraordinary parts of Dr. 
Boxvdenh work, is that in which he undertakes t© 



94 LETTER 111. 

answer my argument drawn from the constitution 
of the Jewish Synagogue I hcid shown, in my 
second Letter, that the Synagogue worship univer- 
sally prevailed among the Jews, at the time of our 
Lord's coming in the flesh ; that the apostles, in 
organizing Christian Churches, v/illing to conform 
as far as possible, to the habits and prejudices of 
the first converts to Christianity, who were Jews, 
deviated as little as circumstances would admit 
from the synagogue model; that this model was 
Presbyterian in its form ; and that the nature of 
the public service, the names and duties of church 
officers, the manner of ordination, &c. were all 
transferred from the synagogue to the church* It 
is not easy to exiblt this argument in its native 
strong light before common readers, because few 
have any tolerable acquaintance with Jewish an- 
tiquities. But the more I reflect upon it, the 
more deeply I am persuaded, that, when properly 
stated and understood, it will be found an argu- 
ment of the most conclusive and satisfactory kind. 
Dn BowdeUy however, views it as wholly des- 
titute of force. This, indeed, might be expected 
from a man, who, as we have lately seen, is hardy 
enough to dissent from a direct statement of the 
apostle Pauh But let us examine his objections 
and his reasonings. 

In the first place, Dr. B. insists that the Chris- 
tian Church could not have been organized after the 
model of the Jewish Synagogue, because the syna- 
gogue did not, properly speaking, partake of the 



TestiniGny of Scripture. 95 

character of a church ; being a mere human in- 
stitution^ and resting on no other basis than human 
authority. He asserts, that my not adverting to 
this fact, is the foundation of my whole error $ 
and that the due consideration of it will complete- 
ly destroy my argument. I trust, however, that 
a few remarks will be sufficient to show thai; the 
want of due consideration is on his part, and not 
on mine ; and that the argument stands firm and 
unanswerable, notwithstanding all he has said. 

When Dr. Bowden so confidently asserts that 
the synagouge was a mere human institution ; that 
no Jew was under any obligation to attend upon 
its service ; and that, being a mere creature of 
man, every one was at liberty, in the sight of God, 
to treat it as he pleased ; — when he makes these 
assertions, he ought to know that he is speaking 
wholly without authority. Who told the learned 
professor all these things ? If he can inform us 
zvhen synagogues v/ere instituted, by whom^ and 
from what source the suggestion or command to 
establish them came, he will render a piece of ser- 
vice to ecclesiastical history, for which all its stu- 
dents will have reason to thank him : for, truly, no 
other person has ever yet been able with any de- 
gree of certainty to give us this information. 
But if he cannot give a decisive answer to any 
one of these questions, how could he dare to 
speak on the subject in the manner that he has 
ventured to do? — It is certain that synagogues 
are mentioned in the 78th Fsalm^ and that they 



96 LETTER III. 

are there called synagogues of God. It is certain 
that putting an offender out of the synagogue^ was 
a well known mode of speaking among the Jews, 
to express exccimminication from the church; and 
it is equally certain, that our Lord and his apostles 
attended the s) nagogue service every sabbath day, 
and thus gave it their decided sanction. Now, all 
these taken together, look, to say the least, like 
something more than mere human contrivance. 
If, as some suppose, the synagogue was instituted 
by Ezra^ after the Babylonish captivity, and none, 
that I know, ascribe to it a later, or less respecta- 
ble origin, even this supposition will not aid Dr. 
Bowden^ or countenance his reasoning. Was not 
Ezra ^Xi inspired man ? And will not, of course, 
an institution of his^ rest on substantially the same 
ground, as to authority, with an institution estab- 
lished or enjoined by Peter or Paid ? 

But granting to Dr. Boxvden all that he asks ; 
granting that the synagogue was a mere human 
institution ; that it made no part of the Jewish 
church, properly so called \ and that no Jew was 
under any divine obligation to attend on its ser- 
vice ; — what does he gain by the concession ? No- 
thing. It is so far from destroying my argument, 
that it does not affect or even touch it. Dr. B. 
does not deny that synagogues existed^ and were 
in use^ at the time in which the apostles were 
called upon to form their Jewish converts into 
Christian churches. How they came into use, 
or by xvhat authority they were introduced, are 



TestimGnif of Scripture. %7 

questions foreign from the present inquiry. Again, 
Dr. B. does not deny, that every particular syna- 
gogue had three classes of officers, a bishops el^ 
ders^ and deacons ; that the peculiar office of the 
bishops (or as he was sometimes called, the a?2gel 
sf the church J was to preside in the public ser- 
vice, and lead the devotions of the people ; that the 
principal duty of the bench of elders^ was to as- 
sist in ruling the synagogue^ and administering its 
discipline^; and that the deacons^ though some- 
times called to the performance of other ser\^i- 
ces, were particularly charged with collecting and 
distributing aims for the poor. Dr. B. does not 
deny, that ordination by the imposition of hands 
was always employed in constituting the syna- 
gogue ministry. And, finally, he does not deny, 
that reading the sacred scriptures, expounding 
them, and offering up public prayers, formed 
the ordinary service of the synagogue. He does 
not deny that all these were found in the Syna* 
gogue^ and that none of them were found in the 
Temple service. This is conceding all that I de- 
sire, or that my argument demands. I care 
not what doubts may be started concerning the 
date or the origin of these institutions. All that 
I have to do with, are the great and indubit^le 
facts^ that they were in use among the Jews \ and 

* Dr. Bovjden explicitly grants that there was a class of 
officers in every Jewish synagogue, similar to the ruling el- 
ders in the Presbyterian church. We shall hereafter sec 
t^at this is an important concession. 

I 



98 LETTER III, 

that In organizing the Christian church, the Apos- 
tles, acting in the name, and under the authority 
of Christ, appointed for the Church the same 
classes of officers as existed in the synagogue ^ 
gave them the same names; assigned to them 
similar duties; directed their ordination to be 
solemnized in the same manner; and prescribed 
for them, substantially, the same course of public 
service. Can any thing be more conclusive ? He 
who can reject this plain induction of facts, will 
find it difficult to be satisfied with demonstration 
itself. 

You will now be able, my brethren, to judge 
between Dr. Bowden and me, with respect to this 
point; or rather between the Presbyterian and 
Episcopal doctrine. We say that the Christian 
church was formed by the apostles after the mo- 
del of the Jewish Synagogue ; while those who 
contend for the divine right of Diocesan Epis- 
copacy, assert, that it was organized, after the 
model of the Temple service. We produce proof. 
We show that the organization and service of the 
Christian church, resemble the Temple \n scarcehj 
any thing ; while they resemble the Synagogue in 
almost every thing. We show that there were 
bishops^ elders^ and deacons in the synagogue ; but 
not in the temple : — That there was ordination by 
the imposition of hands in the synagogue, but no 
ordination at all in the temple: — That there were 
reading the scriptures, expounding them, and pub- 
lic prayers, every sabbath day^ in the synagogue ; 



Testimony of Scripture. ^^ 

^vhile the body of the people^ went up to the 
temple only three times a year^ and even then 
to attend on a very different service : — That in 
the synagogue, there was a system established, 
which included a weekly provision not only for 
the instruction and devotions of the people, but 
also for the maintenance of discipline, and the 
care of the poor; while scarcely any thing of 
this kind was to be found in the temple. Now, 
in all these respects, and In many more which 
might be mentioned, the Christain church fol- 
lowed the Synagogue, and departed from the Tem- 
ple. Could we trace a resemblance in one or a 
Jew points, it might be considered as accidental ; 
but the resemblance Is so close, so striking, and 
extends to so many particulars, as to arrest the 
attention of the most careless inquirer. It was, 
indeed, notoriously so great in the early ages, 
that t^e heathen frequently suspected and charged 
Christian churches, with being Jewish synagogues 
in disguise. But with respect to the Temple ser- 
vice, this resemblance is, in almost every particu- 
lar, entirely wanting. I ask, then, after which of 
these models was the Christian church formed ? 
The answer is so plain, that I should insult your 

* Only the males J it will be observed, were required to 
go up to Jerusalem, three times a year. If, therefore. Dr. 
jBoW^n's position, that the synagogue service was a mei-e 
human invention, be admitted, then it wiU follow, that there 
was no public religious service of divine institution in which 
the Jewish females could ever join ! Is this probable? 



100 LETTER III. 

understandings by-supposing it possible for you to 
doubt. 

It is vain to object as Dr. Bowden does, that 
the resemblance between the Christain church 
and the sjnagogue is not absolutely perfect as to 
every vimute particular. This does not affect the 
general principle. He objects, for instance, that 
neither Baptism nor the Lord'*s Supper is to be 
found in the synagogue service. Be it so. But 
were they to be found in the Temple service^ for 
the resemblance of which to the Christian church, 
he so ardently contends ? No. Baptism^ among 
the Jews had no connexion with the Temple; 
and with respect to the Passover^ it was instituted 
long before the temple had a being; and has been 
continued near eighteen hundred years since it was 
no more. 

But Dr. Bowden is incorrect in his premises^ as 
well as in his conclusion. Both Baptism and the Pass- 
over^ though they had no connexion with the Tem- 
ple, were connected with the Synagogue. The 
ministers of the Synagogue admitted Proselytes 
to their communion by baptising parents and chil- 
dren. To constitute a regular Jewish baptism, it 
was necessary that three Elders of the Synagogue 
should be present. The Synagogue officers also 
determined the question of right who should eat 
the Passover. In fact, the Synagogue officers did 
admit Proselytes into the Jewish Church, and ex- 
communicate offenders. They had the care of the 
whole discipline from the time of Ezra. The 



Testimonij of Scripture* 101 

priests, It is true, had a voice ; but it was as mem< 
bers of the Sanhedrim^ and not as officers of the 
Temple. 

As to Dr. B.'s objection, that the organization 
of the Christian church cannot resemble that of 
the synagogue, because the buhop of the syna- 
gogue had only the charge of a single congrega- 
t'lon^ whereas he is persuaded, that the Christian 
Bishop has a charge extending over many congre- 
gations — I can only say, that while it includes a 
most ludicrous begging of the question in debate, 
it carries with it also a most important concession, 
which I take for granted the Dn was not aware 
of; but which is fatal to his cause. — He grants 
ihat the bishop of the synagogue, (and of course, 
the only kind of bishop to which the first con- 
verts to Christianity had been accustomed,) was 
the pastor, or presiding officer, over a single con-- 
gregation. Now if the model of the synagogue, 
and not of the temple, was adopted by the apos- 
tles, it affi^rds a strong presumption that the scrip- 
tural bishop was, what we suppose him to have 
been, the pastor of a single church. In fact, Dn 
B. fully concedes this : for, in another part of his 
work, he frankly acknowledges that, in the days of 
the aposdes, the title of bishop was currently ap- 
plied to the pastors of particular churches. There 
is nothing now wanting, even on Dr. B.'s own 
principles, to render the resemblance between the 
synagogue and the church complete, so far as the 
^iffieers of each are concerned, but to find ruling 
I 2 



10^ LETTER in, 

elders in the primitive church. But a bench of 
ruling elders^ corresponding with those who bear 
that name in our church, he acknowledges belong- 
ed to the Synagogue ; and in the next Letter I 
hope to prove, to the satisfaction of every impar- 
tial mind, that such officers were instituted in the 
primitive Church. 

The great principle for which I am contending, 
viz. that the Christian Church was organized on 
the model of the Synagogue, has been received 
and maintained by a number of the ablest divines 
that ever wrote on the subject, both Presbyterian 
and Episcopal. But all testimonies adduced from 
the former will be viewed, by Dr. Bowden and his 
friends, with a suspicious eye. I shall, therefore, 
pass by all that has been said on this subject, by 
the incomparably learned and able Professor F/- 
tringa, of Holland^ and by that prodigy of erudi- 
tion, the celebrated Selden^ oi England — ^because 
ihey were Presbyterians ^. But I hope my op- 
ponents, in this controversy will pay some respect 
to the following quotations from some of the most 
respectable writers in their own church, who con- 
cede all that I ask or desire. 

The first quotation shall be taken from Bishop 
Bur7ieL " Among the Jews, (says he) he who 



* I call Selden a Presbyterian, because, though not a tho- 
rough advocate for Presbyterianism, strictly so caflled, he was 
decidedly ami -episcopal. 



Testimony of Scripture* 103 

" was the chief of the Synagogue^ was called 
" Chazan Hakeneseth^ i. e. the Bishop of the 
" Congregation^ and Sheliach Tsibbor^ the Angel 
" of the Church. And the Christian Church be- 
" ing modelled as near the form of the Syna- 
*^ gogue as they could be ; as they retained many 
^^ of the rites, so the form of the government was 
*' continued^ and the names remained the sameP 
And again, " In the Synagogues there was, first, 
** one who was called the Bishop of the Congrega- 
" tion ; next the three orderers and judges of eve- 
" ry thing about the Synagogue ^ who were called 
" Tsekenim^ and by the Greeks ^rfSi^yrF^o*, or 
" yj^ovTff, that is, Elders* These ordered and 
" determined every thing that concerned the Sy^ 
" nagogue, or the persons in it* Next them were 
" the three Parnassin or Deacons^ whose charge 
" was to gather the collections of the rich, and 
" distribute them to the poor ^." 

The next quotation shall be taken from Dr. 
Lightfoot^ another Episcopal Divine, not less dis- 
tinguished for his learning and talents. " The 
" Apostle," (says he) " calleth the minister, Epis'- 
" copus^ (or Bishops from the common and known 
" title of the Chazan or Overseer in the Syna-* 
" ^fo^we-." And again, *^ Besides these, tfiere 
'* was the public minister of the Synagogue, who 
" prayed publicly, and took care about reading 
" the law, and sometimes preached, if there were 

* Olfservaticns on the i. Can. p, 2. and ii. Can. p. 83» 



104 LETTER III. 

" not some other to discharge this office. This 
" person was called Sheliach Tsibbor^ the Angel 
" of the Churchy and Chazan Hakeneseth the Cha- 
*^ zan or Bishop of the Congregation. The Aruch 
" gives the reason of the name. The Chazan^ 
" says he, is Sheliach Tsibbor^ the Angel of the 
" Churchy (or the public minister,) and the Tar- 
" gum renders the word Roveh by the word 
" Hose^ one that oversees. For it is incumbent 
" on him to oversee how the reader reads, and 
" whom he may call out to read in the law. The 
" public minister of the Synagogue himself read 
" not the law publicly, but every Sabbath he called 
" out seven of the Synagogue (on other days 
*^ fewer) whom he judged fit to read. He stood 
" by him that read, with great care observing that 
*^ he read nothing either falsely or improperly, 
" and calling him back, and correcting him, if 
" he had failed in any thing. And hence he was 
" called Chazan^ that is Ettkhovoj, i. e. Bishop or 
cc Overseer. Certainly the signification of the 
** word Bishops and Angel of the Churchy had 
" been determined with less noise, if recourse 
" had been had to the proper fountains, and men 
" had not vainly disputed about the signification 
" of words taken I know not whence. The ser- 
" vice and worship of the Temple being abolish- 
" ed, as being ceremonial, God transplanted the 
" worship and public adoration of God used in 
" the Synagogues, which was moral, into the 
^^ Christian Churchy viz. the public ministry^ 



Testimony of Scripture. 105 

" public prayers, reading God's word, and preach- 
^' ing, &c. Hence the names of the ministers of 
" the Gospel were the very same, the Angel of 
" the Churchy the Bishop which belonged to the 
" Ministers in the Synagogues. There were also 
" three Deacons^ or Almoners^ on whom was the 
" care of the poor *." 

The celebrated Grotius'\^ whose great learning 
and talents will be considered by all as giving 
much weight to his opinion on any subject, is full 
and decided in maintaining that the primitive 
church was formed after the model of the Syna- 
gogue. Many passages might be quoted from his 
writings, in which this opinion is direcdy asserted. 
The following may suffice. In his Commentary 
on Acts XI. 30. he expresses himself thus : " The 
" whole polity CregimenJ of the Christian Church 
^^ was conformed to the pattern of the Synagogue.^^ 
And in his Commentary on 1. Ti7n. v. 17. he has 
the following passage. " Formerly, in large ci- 
" ties, as there were many Synagogues, s6 there 
" were also many churches, or separate meetings 
" of Christians. And every particular Church 
" had its own President, or Bishop, who instruct- 

* See Lightfoot's Works, Vol. i. p. 308. and ii. p. 133. 

t Though Grotius was bred a Presbyterian ; yet being 
soured by what he considered as ill treatment from the 
Church of Hollandy he discovered a strong predilection 
for Episcopacy. When this is considered, the declarations 
above cited, carry with them peculiar force. 



105 LETTER in* 

*^ ed the people, and ordained Presbyters* In 
** Alexandria alone it was the custom to have but 
^* one President or Bishop, for the whole city, who 
" distributed Presbyters through the city for the 
"purpose of instructing the people; as we are 
" taught by Sozomen. i. 14.'' 

The next point in Dr. BowderU^ exhibition of 
Scriptural testimony, which demands attention, is 
the alleged Episcopal character of James over 
the church of Jerusalem, — This argument in fa- 
vour of Prelacy, was wholly omitted in my former 
volume, not because there was any difficulty in an- 
swering it, but because it really appeared to me too 
frivolous to be seriously considered. Dr. Bowden^ 
however, having no arguments to spare, has brought 
it forward with much confidence, and seems to con- 
sider it, like every other on the Episcopal side, as 
perfectly conclusive. Indeed he appears to regard 
nie as guilty of injustice to the Episcopal cause ift 
passing it over in silence. 

But how does it appear, from the New Testa- 
ment, that James w*as Bishop of Jerusalem ? From 
such considerations, the advocates of prelacy tell us, 
as the following : 1. That in the Synod at Jerusa- 
lemj C-Acts XV.) he spoke lasty and expressed him- 
self thxis-^Vherefore my sentence isj &c. 2. That 
Petery after his release from prison, said to certain 
persons — Go show these things unto James and to 
the brethren. Acts xii. 17. And 3. That, in 
Acts XXI. 17, 18. it is said — And when xve were 
Qome to Jerusalem^ the brethren received us gladly. 



Testimony of Scripture* 107 

And the day folloxving Paul went in with us unto 
James; and all the Elders were present. On these 
passages Dr. Bowden asks, '' Why did Peter di- 
rect certain things to be communicated particular- 
ly to James^ if he were not the Bishop ? What in- 
duced Paul and his company to go in unto James 
in particular ; and how came all the Elders to be 
with James^ unless he were the Bishop ? On the 
supposition that he bore this character every thing 
is natural ; but on any other supposition these facts 
must appear very strange. I see enough to con- 
vince me that he was the head of all the Presbyters 
and Congregations in Jerusalem. For I find him 
constantly distinguished from his clergy. He is 
always mentioned jirst^ and the name of no other 
Presbyter, however eminent he may have been, is 
ever given. He is mentioned with marked respect 
on various occasions," &c. &c. i. 345 — 352. 

This argument, when stripped of all its decora- 
rions, stands simply thus — James was the last per- 
son who spoke in the Synod \ therefore he was su- 
perior to all the Apostles and others present ! Peter 
requested an account of his release from prison to 
be sent to James ; therefore James was a Diocesan 
Bishop / Paul and his company went to the house 
of James in Jerusalem^ and there found the El- 
ders convened ; therefore James was their ecclesi- 
astical Governor ! 

Now, in the name of common sense, what con- 
nexion is there in this case, between the premises 
and the conclusion ? Are no clergymen ever treated 



108 LETTER III. 

with " pointed respect/^ unless they are Diocesan 
Bishops ? Do no clerical meetings ever take place 
in the houses of any other class of ministers than 
Diocesan Bishops? Cannot messages of a public 
nature be sent to individual ministers of the Gos- 
pel, without supposing them to be Prelates? Sup- 
pose a number of Presbyterian ministers had an im- 
portant communication to make to the Clergy of a 
certain city, would it be inconsistent with their doc* 
trine of parity to address this communication to a 
particular individual, most distinguished for his 
age, talents, piety, and influence, to be by him im- 
parted to the rest of his brethren? Nay, is not 
this, in all Presbyterian, as well as other countries, 
the ordinary method of proceeding? When the 
elergy of any town or district convene for mutual 
consultation, does their assembling in the house of 
some aged and venerable brother in the ministry 
constitute that brother their Bishops in the Episco- 
pal sense of the word ? To propose questions of 
this kind seriously is little short of an insult to 
the understanding of the reader. Do not facts 
of the very kind related of James^ happen every 
day to Presbyterian ministers ? When gendemen 
who would be thought to argue^2XiA not to tri^e^ 
condescend to amuse their readers with repre- 
sentations of this kind, under the garb of reason-- 
ing^ it is really difficult to answer them in the Ian- 
guage of respect or gravity. 

But the Fathers^ it seems, assert that James 
W;is Bishop of Jermalem. Admitting this facti 



TestiniGfiy of Scripture* 109 

and adttiitting, also, that there were no circumstan- 
ces tending to invalidate their testimony; to what 
does it amount? Why, simply, that James was one 
of the Clergy, perhaps the Senior Clergyman of 
tlie Church of yerusalem^ and probably the most 
conspicuous and eminent of them all. For let it 
never be forgotten that our Episcopal brethren 
themselves acknowledge, that the tide of Bishop 
was applied in the Apostles' days, and for some 
time afterwards, to the Pastors of single congrega- 
tions, and of course that this term alone decides 
nothing in their favour. But let us sift this matter 
a little. Hegesippus is quoted by Eiisebius as rela- 
ting, that " Jcmies^ the brother of our Lord, under- 
took, together with the Apostles, the government 
of the Church of Jerusalem'^.^'^ This is the earliest 
writer that is brought to testify directly on the sub- 
ject ; and he declares that James presided over the 
Church in Jerusalem in conjunction -with the other 
Apostles. He says, indeed, a little before, that the 
Bishoprick of Jerusalem was given to James by 
the Apostles, but when we come to compare the 
two passages, and to interpret the one by the other^ 
the whole testimony of this writer will be found 
perfectly equivocal. Some of the later Fathers, 
also, following Hegesippus^ speak of James as Bi- 
shop of Jerusalem ; but do they tell us in what sense 
they employ this tide ? That the aposdes and pri- 
mitive christians sometimes employed it in a sense 



* EczUs. -ff»?. Lib. II. Cap. 23. 
K 



110 LETTER III. 

different from that which is adopted by our Epis- 
copal brethren, is confessed on all hands. And 
that these early writers, when they speak of James 
as Bishop of Jerusalem^ mean to say that he was 
a Prelate^ a Bishop, in the modern and perverted 
sense of the term, is what we confidently call in 
question, and what Dr. Bowden^ with all his breth- 
ren to aid him, cannot prove. I know that the 
learned Professor loses all patience at intimations 
of this kind ; but it is by no means the first time 
that a man has been provoked by a demand of 
proofs when he had nothing but assertion to pro* 
duce. 

But the most wonderful part of the story Is, that 
Dr. Bowden produces Calvhi as a witness in sup- 
port of the Episcopal dignity of James. On this 
point he speaks in the following terms : " So evi» 
" dent is it, that James was Bishop of Jerusa' 
*•* lem^ that even Calvin thinks it highly probable 
" that he was Governor of that Church. * When, 
*^ says Calvin^ the question is concerning dignity, 
^* it is wonderful James should be preferred be- 
^^ fore Peter. Perhaps it was because he was 
*^ Prefect of the Church of Jerusalem.* In Ga* 
^' lat» c. II. v. 9. Calvin did not choose to speak 
'^ plainer ; for that would have been in direct contra- 
'' vention to his ecclesiastical regimen.*' i. p. 346. 

The moment I cast my eye on this quotation 
from Calvin^ I took for granted that something 
had been kept back, which, if produced, would 
turn the tables on the Professor. And this accor- 



Testimony of Scripture. Ill 

dingly proves to be the case. The passage, as it 
really stands in Calvin^ is as follows. " The Apos- 
" tie speaks of their (James^ Cephas^ and John^J 
" seeming to be pillars^ not by way of contempt, but 
" he repeats a common sentiment. '' Because from 
** this it follows, that what they did, ought not to 
" be lightly rejected. When the question is con- 
" cerning dignity, it is wonderful that Ja^nes 
*^ should be preferred to Peter* Perhaps this was 
" done because he was President of the Church of 
" Jerusalem. With respect to the word pillar^ 
""^ we know, that, in the very nature of things, 
" those who excel others in talents, in prudence, or 
" in other endowments, must also be superior in 
" authority. In the Church of God it is a fact, 
*^ that in proportion as any one is strong in grace 
*^ in the same proportion is honour due to him* 
" It is ingratitude, nay, it is impiety, not to do 
" homage to the Spirit of God wherever he ap- 
" pears in his gifts. And further, as the people 
" of a Church cannot do without a pastor, so 
" each particular assembly of pastors stands in 
" need of some one to be moderator. But let it 
" be always understood, that he who is first of all 
*^ should be as a servant, according to Matthew 
« 23. 11." 

Where is the testimony from Calvin now ? And, 
I will add, where are Dr. Bowden'^ blushes ? The 
truth is, the whole passage, like the tenour of all 
CahirH^ writings, is decidedly anti-prelatical. That 
great Reformer, as will be more fully seen here- 



112 JtEtTER Ili. 

after^ believed In no authority of one minister over 
another, as having existed in the primitive church, 
but a moderator ship ^ either occasional or standing, 
for the maintenance of order. 

This is not the only instance in which Dr. Bow* 
den entirely perverts the language of Calvin^ and 
represents him as delivering opinions directly op* 
posite to those which he really does deliver. Of 
this, more in a future letter, in which the wri- 
tings of Calvin^ so far as they relate to Episcopacy, 
will be particularly considered. In the mean time 
I cannot forbear to notice a single specimen, so 
gross and remarkable, that I could scarcely credit 
the testimony of my own senses when I found it 
advanced by both my opponents, not only with 
confidence, but even with sarcastic and reproachful 
exultation, as a great concession from the reformer 
of Geneva in their favour. 

In his Commentary on Titus i. 5. Calvin speaks 
largely of the mission of that Evangelist to the 
Churches of Crete. Dr. Boxvden and Mr. How 
wish to persuade their readers, that, in these re- 
marks, he fairly gives up the point that Titus was 
a Diocesan Bishop, or Prelate. Accordingly they 
both represent him as saying — " Hence we learn 
^' that there was not any equality among the mi- 
*' nisters of the Church, but that one was placed 
" over the rest in authority and counsel." On 
this pretended quotation from Calvin^ Mr. How 
observes, ^' Here the divine institution of superior 
^^ and inferior grades of ministers, is asserted in 



Testimony of Scripture. 113 

" unqualified terms." p. 63. Dr. Boxvden quotes 
the passage from Calvin^ exactly in the same man- 
ner, and makes precisely the same use of it with 
Mr. How. 

You will, no doubt, be filled with astonishment, 
my brethren, to find that the passage from which 
these gentlemen profess to make this quotation, is 
in fact as follows : " Presbyters^ or Elders^ it is well 
" known, are not so denominated on account of 
" their age^ since young men are sometimes cho- 
" sen to this office, as for instance, Timothy ; but 
" it has ever been customary, in all languages, to 
" apply this tide, as a term of honour, to all 
'' Rulers. And, as we gather from the first Epis- 
" tie to Timothy^ that there were txvo kinds of El- 
" ders ; so here the context shows that no other 
" than teaching Elders are to be understood \ that 
" is, those who were ordained to teach ; because 
" the same persons are presently called Bishops. 
" It may be objected that too much power seems 
" to be given to Tttus^ when the Apostle com- 
" mands him to appoint ministers over all the 
" Churches. This, it may be said, is littie less 
" than kingly power ; for, on this plan, the right 
" of choice is taken away from the particular 
*' Churches, and the right of judging in the case 
" from the College of Pastors; and this would 
" be to profane the whole of the sacred discipline 
" of the Church. But the answer is easy. Every 
•* thing was not intrusted to the will of Titu's as an 
" individual^ nor was he allowed to impose eucb 
K 2 



114 LETTER Iir, 

^' Bishops on the Churches, as he pleased : but he 
" was commanded to preside m the elections as 
*' Moderator^ as it is necessary for some one to do. 
*^ This is a mode of speaking exceedingly com- 
*' mon. Thus a Consul^ or Regent^ or Dictator^ 
'* is said to create Consuls, because he convenes 
^* assemblies for the purpose of making choice of 
" them. So also Luke uses the same mode of 
^^ speaking concerning Paw/ and Barnabas in the 
" Acts of the Apostles ; not that they alone autho- 
*^ ritatively appointed Pastors over the Churches, 
'' without their being tried or approved ; but they 
'^ ordained suitable men, who had been elected or 
" chosen by the people. We learn also;from this 
*' place, that there was not then such an equality 
" among the ministers of the Church, but that 
" some one might preside in authority and counsel. 
'^ This, however, was nothing like the tyrannical 
^' and unscriptural Prelacy which reigns in the 
'^ Papacy"^. The plan of the Apostles was ex- 
" tremely different." 

Here is not only a passage taken out of its con- 
nexion, and interpreted in a sense diametrically 
opposite to the whole scope and strain of the wri- 
ter ; but, what is much worse, the passage itself is 
mistranslated^ and made to speak a language essen- 
tially different from the original. Mr. How may 
possibly pleadv that he never saw the original ; that 

* Here Cahin not only represents Prelacy as a tyrannical 
and unscriptural S3^stem, but evidently considers it as a part 
of the ccrruptlons of Popery, 



Testimony of Scripture* 115 

he quoted entirely on the authority of some other 
person. But Dr. Borvden cannot make the same 
plea. He inserts in the margin the very words 
which he mistranslates and perverts ! What are we 
to think of such a fact? Is Dr. B. unable to trans- 
late a plain piece of Latin? or did he design to 
deceive ? He may choose which alternative he 
pleases. 

Dr. Bowden thinks me inconsistent with myself 
in demanding decided Scriptural xvarra72t^ and in 
maintaining the sujfficiency of Scripture to direct 
us on the subject of ecclesiastical order ; while, at 
the same time, I acknowledge that there are no 
formal or explicit decisions delivered on this sub- 
ject, either by Christ or his Apostles. But where 
is the inconsistency here ? Do I not maintain that, 
although the Scriptures present no formal or ex- 
plicit decisions on this subject, yet we find in the 
New Testament, " a mode of expression^ and a 
" number of facts^ from which we may, without 
'' difficulty, ascertain the oudines of the Apostolic 
*' plan of Church order?" And is not this " Scrip- 
" tural warrant r" Is it not " decided^^ Scriptural 
warrant, in the estimation of all those who consi- 
der the form of the Apostolic Church as a model 
intended for our imitation ? This is perfectly clear 
to every impartial mind : with others it is vain t© 
reason. 

With respect to Dr. Bowderi^s open declara- 
tion, that the Scriptures, taken alone, are not a 
sufficient guide on this subject; that we cannot 



116 LETTER III. 

" Stir a step," in the controversy, to any purpose, 
without the aid of the Fathers ; and even that we 
cannot establish the genuineness and authenticity 
of the Scriptures themseh'^es, without the writings 
of the Fathers — I can only say that I consider it 
as a declaration equally unworthy of his charac- 
ter as a Divine, and as a Christian. Has Dr. Bow- 
den no evidence that the Scriptures are from God, 
but what the Fathers say ? Then he is exceedingly 
to be pitied ; for his hope rests upon a most preca- 
rious foundation. I bless God that much better 
judges have been of a different opinion. I bless 
God that the greatest ornaments of his own Church, 
from Cranmer^ Latimer^ and Ridley^ to the present 
day, have considered the internal evidence of the 
Scriptures as the strongest^ the best^ and most pre-' 
cious of all. The testimony of the Fathers, in- 
deed, has its use ; but to place it in the point of 
light in which Dr. Bowden does, and to lay so much 
stress upon it as he avows a disposition to do, is 
really extraordinary conduct for a Protestant minis* 
ler of the Gospel ! 

The doctrine of our Confession of Faith is full 
and explicit on this subject. ^' We may be mov- 
*' ed and induced by the testimony of the Church, 
^* to an high and reverend esteem for the Holy 
*' Scripture : And the heavenliness of the matter^ 
*^ the efficacy of the doctrine^ the majesty of the 
^' style^ the consent of all the parts? the scope of 
" the whole, the full discovery it makes of the 
" only way of man's salvation, the many other in- 



Testimony of Scripture. 117 

^' comparable excellencies^ and the entire perfection 
^' thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abun- 
*' dantly evidence itself to be the word of God. 
'' Yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and as- 
" surance of the infallible truth, and divine autho* 
" rity thereof, is from the inward work of the Ho- 
" ly Spirit, bearing witness, by and with the word 
" in our hearts. — The whole counsel of God con- 
" cerning all things necessary for his own glory, 
" man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly 
'* set down in Scripture, or, by good and necessa- 
" ry consequence, may be deduced from Scrip- 
" ture ; unto which nothing, at any time, is to be 
'' added, whether by new revelations, or by the 
*' spirit and traditions of men." Chap. i. This is 
the doctrine of all the Reformed Churches. The 
doctrine of the latter clause, is explicitly recogniz- 
ed in the Vlth article of Dr. Bowdenh own 
Church, which, in my opinion, he misunderstands 
and perverts. " Holy Scripture containeth all 
" things necessary to salvation : so that whatso- 
" ever is not read therein, nor may be proved 
^^ thereby, is not to be required of any man, that 
" it should be believed as an article of the Faith, 
" or be thought requisite or necessary to Salva- 
" tion." This is the rock on which we stand. 
As long as we can show, and while the Bible 
lasts I am sure we shall always be able to show, 
that Presbyterian government was the Apostolic 
model of Church order, we may stand unmoved at 
all opposite testimony, however plausible in its na* 
ture, and however confidently adduced. 



( 118 ) 



LETTER IV. 



Testimony in favour of the office of Ruling Elder » 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

xN several passages in my former Letters, I ad* 
verted to the office of Ruling Elder^ and offered 
some considerations to show that it was instituted 
in the primitive Church. Dr. Bowden^ perceiving 
that this position, if maintained, would prove fatal 
to his cause, has endeavoured, with all his force, to 
drive me from it, and to persuade his readers, that 
no such officer was known in the Christian Church 
until modern times. As this will hereafter appear 
to be a question of great importance, not only on 
account of the office itself, but also on account of 
its close connexion with the doctrine of ministe- 
rial parity, I hope you will pardon me for discuss- 
ing it more carefully, and at greater length than I 
was able to do in my former volume. 

There is, independent of all historical testimo- 
ny, strong presumptive evidence that such an office 
must have been instituted by the Apostles. There 
is a demandy little short of absolute necessity ^ that 
one or more persons, under some name, to perform 
the duties of Ruling Elders^ should be appointed 
in every well ordered Congregation. The Minis- 



Rtding Elders. 119 

ter, whether he be called Pastor, Bishop, Rector, 
or by whatever title, cannot individually perform 
all the duties which are included in maintaining 
government and discipline in the Church, as well 
as ministering in the word and sacraments. He 
cannot be every where, or know every thing. He 
must have a number of grave, judicious, and pious 
persons, w^ho shall assist him v/ith information and 
counsel ; whose official duty it shall be to aid 
him in overseeing, regulating, and edifying the 
Church. We can hardly have a better com- 
ment on these remarks, than the practice of those 
Churches which reject Ruling' Elders. Our Epis^ 
copal brethren reject them ; but they are obliged 
to have their Vestrymen and Church-Wardens ^ who 
perform the duties belonging to such Elders. 
Our independent brethren also reject this class of 
Church Officers ; but they too are forced to resort 
to a Committee^ who attend to the numberless de- 
tails of parochial duty, which the Ministers cannot 
perform. They can scarcely take a single step 
without having mfact^ though not in name^ precise- 
ly such officers as we recognize under the Scriptu- 
ral appellation of Elders. Now, is it probable, is 
it credible, that the Apostles, acting under the in- 
spiration of Christ, the King and Head of the 
Church, should entirelv overlook this necessitv, 
and make no provision for it ? It is not credible. 
We must, then, either suppose that some such offi- 
cers as those in question were appointed by the 
Apostles, or that meaps, acknowledged by the 



12© LETTER IV. 

practice of all, to be indispensable in conducting 
the affairs of the Church, were forgotten or ne- 
glected. 

Again; Dr. Bowden acknowledges, and with 
perfect correctness, that there were such officers in 
the Jewish Synagogue. '^ The Elders^'^ says 
he, " of the Jewish Synagogue corresponded with 
" the Lay'Elders of your (the Presbyterian) 
" Church." Letters^ Vol. i. 330. But if the 
Christian Church was organized after the model 
of the Synagogue, a fact of which there is the 
fullest evidence, then w^e may presume that simi- 
lar Elders were included in this organization. 
This class of officers, so familiar to every Jew, 
and so indispensable in his eyes to the mainte- 
nance of ecclesiastical government and order, 
would, by no means, be likely to be left out, when 
every other was notoriously retained. 

But we have better evidence. The New Tes- 
tament makes express mention of such Elders. 
There is undoubtedly a reference to them in 1 
Timothy^ v. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be 
counted worthy of double honour^ especially they 
who labour in the xvord and doctrine. Every man 
of plain good sense, who had never heard of any 
controversy on the subject, would conclude, oa 
reading this passage, that, when it was written, there 
were two kinds of Elders, one whose duty it was 
to labour in the word and doctrine^ and another who 
did not thus labour, but only ruled in the Church ; 
die Apostle says. Elders t^at rule well, are worthy 



Riding Eldtrs. 121 

of double honour^ but especially those who Ici' 
hour in the word and doctrine. Now if we sup- 
pose that there was only one kind of Elders then 
in the Church, and that they were all teachers or 
labourers in the word^ we must make the inspired 
writer speak a language utterly unworthy of his 
character. There was, therefore, a class of Elders 
in the Apostolic Church, who did not preach, nor 
administer sacraments, but assisted in government. 
These, by whatever name they niay be called, were 
precisely the same with those officers which we 
denominate Ruling Elders. 

For this construction of the passage, Dr. Whit- 
■ciker^ a zealous and learned Episcopal Divine, and 
Professor of Divinity in the University of Cam* 
bridge^ zealously contends* And though his de- 
claration on the subject was quoted in my former 
Letters, I cannot help repealing it here. " By 
^' these words," says he, '^ the Apostle evidently 
^^ distinguishes between the Bishops and the In* 
'-'- spectors of the Church. If all who rule w^ell 
'•'• be worthy of double honour, especially they 
^^ who labour in the word and doctrine, it is plain 
'* there were some v/ho did not so labour ; for if 
^' all had been of this description, the meaning 
" would have been absurd ; but the word especially 
*' points out a difference. If I should say, that 
*' all who study well at the university are worthy 
•^ of double honour, especially they xvho labour in 
^' the study of theology^ I must either mean that 
^' all do not apply themselves to the study of theo^ 

L 



12S LETTER IV. 

" %j/, or I should speak nonsense. Wherefore 
'^ I confess that to be the most genuine sense by 
" which pastors and teachers are distinguished 
" from those who only governed." — Prcckct. ap. 
Didioclav. p. 681. Equally to our purpose is the 
opinion of that acute and learned Episcopal Di* 
vine, Dr. IVhitby^ in his note on this passage, 
which was also in part before quoted. " The 
*' Elders of the Jews," says he, " were of two 
'' sorts; 1st. Such as ^^i;erne^ in the Synagogue ; 
'' and 2dly. Such as ministered in reading and 
^' expounding their Scriptures and traditions, and 
" from them pronouncing what did bind or loose, 
" or what was forbidden, and what was lawful to 
*' be done. For when, partly by their captivity, 
" and partly through increase and traffick, they 
" were dispersed in considerable bodies through 
" divers regions of the world, it was necessary 
'' that they should have governors or magistrates^ 
" to keep them in their duty, and judge of crimi- 
'' nal causes ; and also Rabbins to teach them the 
^^ law, and the traditions of their fathers. The 
" Jirst were ordained ad judicandum^ sed non ad 
^' docendiim de Ileitis et vetitis^ i. e. to judge, and 
*•' govern, but not to teach : The second^ ad docen^ 
" t/wm, sed non ad judicandum^ i. e. to teach but 
** not to judge or govern. And these the Apos- 
" tie here declares to be the most honourable 
^' and worthy of the chiefest reward. Accor- 
*^ dingly, the Apostle, reckoning up the offices 



Ruling Elders. 123 

" God had appointed in the Church, places teack^ 
" ers htioTQ gGverniiieiits. 1 Corin. xii. 28." 

I am aware that several glosses have been 
adopted to set aside the testimony of this text 
in favour of Ruling Elders. To enumerate and 
expose them would be a waste of time and pa- 
tience. It is sufficient to say, that none of them 
possess any real force, and scarcely any of them 
even plausibility. And you will hereafter find, 
that, notwithstanding all these glosses, the text in 
question has been considered as conclusive in sup- 
port of our doctrine, by some of the best judges, 
and by the great body of orthodox Christians, 
from the Aposdes to the present day. 

The next passage of Scripture w^hich affords a 
warrant for the office of Ruling Elder is to be 
found in Romans xii, 6. 7. 8. Having then gifts y 
differing according to the grace given to us ; xvhc^ 
iher prophesy^ let us prophesy according to the pro- 
portion of faith ; or miiiistry^ let us zvait on our 
ministering; or he that teacheth^ on teaching; or 
he that exhorteth^ on an exhortation : he that giveth^ 
let him do it with simplicity ; he that ruleth, 
with diligence; he that shezveth mercy ^ -with cheers- 
fulness* With this passage may be connected 
another, of similar character, and to be interpreted 
on the same principles. I mean the following 
from 1 Corinthians xii. 28. God hath set some in the 
.Churchy first Apostles^ secondarily Prophets^ third* 
ly Teachers^ after that miracles ^ then gifts of heaU 
ingSy helps^ governments, diversities of tongues. 



124 LETTER IV* 

In both these passages, there is a reference to 
tlie different offices and gifts bestowed on the 
Church, by her divine King and Head ; in both 
of them there is a plain designation of an office 
for ruling or government^ distinct from that of 
teaching.; and in both, also, this office evidently 
has a place assigned to it heloiv that of Pastors and 
Teachers. This office, by vi^hatever name it may 
be called, and however its character may be dis- 
guised by ingenuity, is, to all intents and pur- 
poses, the same with that which Presbyterians dis- 
tinguish by the title of Ruling Elder. 

Let us now proceed to inquire what the Fathers 
say concerning this class of Church officers. And 
here, for the sake of presenting a connected view 
of the argument, I shall incorporate a portion of 
the evidence adduced in my former Letters, with 
such further testimonies as I find to my purpose^ 

In the Gesta Purgationis CcecUiani et Felicis *, 
we meet with the following enumeration of ChurcK 
Officers, Presbyteri^ Diacones et Seniores^ i. e« 
" The Presbyters, the Deacons and Elders." 
And a little after it is added — '^ Adhihite con* 
^' clericos et senior es plehis^ ecclesiasticos viros^ et 
*' inquirant diligenter quce sint istce dissentiones^'^ 
i. e. " call the fellow-clergymen, and Elders of 
" the people, ecclesiastical men^ and let them 
^> inquire diligently what are these dissentions." 
In that assembly, likewise, several letters were pro- 

* See these Gesta, kc. preserved at the end o^ Optatusyhy 
Jlbasphiceus^ his Commentator. 



Ruling Elders. 125 

duced and read; one addressed Clero et Seniori^ 
bus^ i. e. " to die Clergyman and the Elders ;" 
and another, Clericis et Senioribus. i. e. " to the 
Clergymen and the Elders." Now I ask, what 
can this language mean ? Here is a class of men, 
expressly called ecclesiastical men^ or Church Offi" 
cers^^ who are styled Elders^ and yet distinguished 
from the clergy, with whom, at the same time, 
they meet, and officially transact business. If 
these be not the Elders of whom we are in search, 
we may give up all the rules of evidence. 

Cyprian^ in his 29th Epistle, directed '' To his 
" brethren, the Presbyters and Deacons," expres- 
ses himself in the following terms: 

^' You are to take notice that I have ordained 
" Satiu'us a reader^ and the confessor Optatus^ a 
" Subdeacon; whom we had all before agreed to 
" place in the rank and degree next to that of the 
" clergy. Upon Easter day, we made one or two 
" trials of Saturus^ in reading, when we were ap- 
'' proving our readers before the teaching Presby* 
*^ ters ; and then appointed Optatiis from among 
" the readers^ to be a teacher of the hearers." On 
this passage the Rev. Mr. Marshall^ the Episcopal 
Translator and Commentator of Cyprian^ remarks 
— " It is hence. I think, apparent, that all Presby- 
" ters were not teachers^ but assisted the Bishop in 
" other parts of his office." And Bishop Felly 
another Editor and Commentator on Cyprian^ re- 
marks on the same passage in the following words: 
^' Inter Presbyteros rectores et doctores dim dis* 
L 2 



126 LETTER IV% 

" tinxisse videter clivus Pauliis^ 1 Tim, v. 17*^ 
i. e. '" St, Paul appears to have made a distinc- 
" tloii, in aeient times, between Teaching and Z?w- 
*' ///?§* Elders^ in 1 Timothy v. 17." Here two 
learned Episcopal Divines explicitly acknowledge 
the distinction betv/een Teaching and Ruling 
Elders^ in the Primitive Church ; and one of 
them.^ an eminent Bishop, not only allows that 
Cyprian referred to this distinction, but also 
quotes as an authority for it, the principal 
text which Presbyterians adduce for the same 
purpose. 

Hilary (frequently called AmbroseJ who lived 
in the 4th century, in his explication of 1 Timothy 
V. 1. has the following passage — " For, indeed, 
** among all nations old age is honourable. Hence 
" it is that the Synagogue^ and afterwards the 
*'* Churchy had Elders^ without whose counsel 
^' nothing v/as done in the Church ; which by 
*' what negligence it grew into disuse I know not, 
" unless, perhaps, by the sloth^ or rather by the 
^^ pride of the Teachers^ wliile they alone wished 
'" to appear something.'' It is scarcely credible to 
\vhat a miserable expedient Dr. Boxvden resorts to 
set aside the force of this testimony. He insists 
upon it that the pious Father only meant to say, 
that '^ in former times the elderly men of the 
" Church used to be consulted, v/hich custom is 
^' now laid aside." And again — " He says nothing 
" more than that it was formerly customary to 
^' consult the aged ; no doubt in difficult situations 



Ruling Elders. 127 

" of the Church, which frequently occurred in 
" the first three centuries, while persecution last- 
*' ed." It is difficult to answer suggestions of 
this kind in grave or respectful language. Can 
any man in his senses believe that Hilartj only de« 
signed to inform his readers that in the Jewish 
Synagogues there w^ere persons W'ho had attained 
a considerable age ; that this is also the case in 
the Christian Church ; and that, in difficult cases, 
these aged persons were consulted ? This would 
have been a sage remark indeed ! Was there ever 
a community, ecclesiastical or civil, which did not 
include some aged persons? Or was there ever a 
state of society, or an age of the world, in which 
the practice of consulting the aged had fallen into 
disuse? I am really ashamed of such an attempt, 
on the part of a grave and " aged" divine, to per- 
vert a passage which could scarcely have been 
made plainer. Hilar y says that, " in the Syna^ 
*•'- gogue^ and afterwards in the Churchy there wete 
" certain Seniors or Elders^ without whose counsel 
'' nothing was done in the Church.'* If this lan- 
guage does not describe a class of persons, w^ho 
held an official station, and whose official duty it 
was to aid by their counsel in the government of 
the Church, then we may despair of attaching any 
definite meaning to words. But what decides the 
question is, as he further states, that in the fourth 
century, this plan of having Elders^ to assist by 
their counsel in the government of the Church, 
had chiefly grown into disuse. Had the Christian 



128 LETTER iV. 

Church become so corrupt, in a little more thaa 
three centuries from its commencement, as to 
thrust all aged persons out of its communion? Or 
if the more venerable and aged were suffered to 
remain, were they never more consulted in cases 
of difficulty and danger? Besides, if there was no 
intention to distinguish between Teaching and Ru- 
ling Elders^ why is it said that these Seniors or 
Elders were hiid aside " on account of the sloth^ 
" or rather the pride of the Teachers^ who alone 
*' wished to be something?" I can very well con- 
ceive that both the p7ide and the sloth of the Teach- 
ing Elders, should render them willing to get rid 
of a bench of officers, of equal power with them- 
selves in the government of the Church, and able 
to control their wishes in cases of discipline; but 
I cannot conceive why either sloth or pride should 
prefer consulting the youngs rather than the aged^ 
on the affairs of the Church. But you will 
scarcely pardon me for detaining you so long with 
the refutation of reasonings so totally unworthy of 
notice. 

Augustine^ Bishop of Hippo^ who also lived in the 
fourth century, often refers to this class of officers 
in his writings. Thus, in his work, Contra Cres- 
con. lib. iii. cap. 56. he speaks of Peregrinus^ 
Presbyter y et Senior es Musticance regionis^ i. e. 
" Peregrine, the Presbyter, and the Elders of the 
" Mustacan district." And again, he addresses 
one of his Epistles to his Church at Hippo^ \Epist. 
137,] Dikctissimis fratribus^ Clero^ Senior ibus et 



Ruling Eiders. 129 

iiniversce plebi ecdesice Hipponensis. i.e. " To the 
" beloved brethren, the Clergyman, the Elders, 
" and all the people of the Church at Hippo.^ 
There were some Elders^ then, in the days of Au- 
gustine^ who were not Clergymen, i. e. Lay-El- 
ders* It would be easy to produce, from the same 
v/riter, a number of other quotations equally to our 
purpose. But Dr. Bowden has rendered this un- 
necessary, by making an explicit acknowledgment, 
that Augustine repeatedly mentions these Seniors 
or Elders as belonging to other Churches as well 
as his own. And to what expedient do you sup- 
pose the Doctor resorts to avoid the consequence 
of this acknowledgment? Why, he gravely tells 
us, that he fully believes, with the " learned Biiig- 
" ham^^ that there were, within the first three or 
four centuries, a class of aged and respectable men 
in the Church, who were styled Seniors or Elders^ 
and whose oficial duty it was to assist in promoting 
the interests of the Church : That some of these 
were called Senior es Ecdesice^ i. e. Elders of the 
Churchy who were chosen to assist the Bishop, 
with their advice and counsel in the weighty af- 
fairs of the Church : and that another class were 
called Senior es Ecclesiastici^ i. e. Ecclesiastical El- 
ders^ who were sometimes entrusted with the uten- 
sils, treasures, and outward affairs of the Church ; 
but had no share in the administration of disci- 
pline. These he compares with the Vestrymen and 
Church Wardens^ which are generally found in Epis- 
copal Churches. Vol. 1. p. 205 — 207. Now, I ask, 



130 LETTER IV. 

what material diiFerence can any nnan see between 
the Se'niores Eccksice^ the Lay Elders^ which Dr. 
Bowden acknowledges to have existed in the 
Primitive Church, and the Lay Elders of the 
Presbyterian Church? Our Elders are appointed 
to assist the Bishop of each particular Church 
with their counsel, in conducting the spiritual 
concerns of the Church. And is not this pre- 
cisely the duty which he assigns to the Seniores 
Ecdesicc of the Primitive Church? It is reallv 
laughable to find Dr, B. conceding, in substance, 
all that we desire ; and yet, on account of some 
petty points of difference, which are too frivolous 
to be noticed, and which do not affect the main 
question, insisting that there is nothing like our 
Lay Elders to be found in primitive times ! 

Though the readers of my former volume, 
know that I have no great respect for the authority 
of the work generally styled Apostolic ConstitU'- 
t'tons ; yet many Episcopal writers have expressed 
very high regard for this work, and entire confi- 
dence in its authenticity. And, although, when it 
claims Apostolic origin, it is to be rejected as an 
^' impudent forgery ;" yet there is a high degree 
of probability that it was composed, by different 
hands, between the second'aXi^ fifth centuries. The 
following quotation from it will, therefore, have 
some weight. " To Presbyters also, when they 
" labour in teachings let a double portion be 
*' assigned." 11. 28. Here is, obviously, a dis- 
tinction between Elders who are employed in 



Ruling Elders* 131 

teachings and those who are not so employed. How 
the others were employed, indeed, is not said ; but 
teaching made no part of their official duty. Wc 
may take for granted their duty was to assist in the 
other spiritual concerns of the Church, viz. in 
maintaining good order and discipline* This is 
precisely the distinction which we make, and 
which we are confident was made in the Primitive 
Church. 

It would be easy to produce many more quota* 
lions from other early writers, which ascertain the 
existence of these Elders, within the first three or 
four centuries of the Christian sera. But it is 
needless. Our opponents acknowledge the fact. 
Bishop Taylor^ a great authority with them, among 
others, explicitly grants ^, that a class of men, 
under the name of Seniors or Elders^ distinguished 
from Clergymen^ are mentioned by a number of 
early writers, as having existed in the Church at an 
early period, and as holding in it some kind of of- 
ficial station. The only question is, what kind of 
Elders they w^ere ? These gentlemen exceedingly 
dislike the idea of their being such Lay-Elders as 
are found in the Presbyterian Church, and assert 
that they were not; but really they offer nothing 
against it that deserves the name even of a plausi- 
ble argument. 



* I think this concession is to be found in his Episcopacy 
Asserted, That it is to be found in one of his works, i am 
certain. 



133 LETTER lY. 

In my former Letters, in exhibiting the testi- 
mony usually produced from Ignatius^ I spoke of 
the Presbyters or Elders so frequently mentioned 
by that Father, in the following terms. " Some 
" of these Elders were probably ordained to the 
'' work of the ministry, and of course, empowered 
" to preach and administer ordinances: but this 
" is not certain. They might all have been Ru" 
" ling Elders for aught that appears to the contra- 
" ry. For in all these Epistles, it is no where 
" said that they either preached or dispensed the 
" sacraments. It cannot be shown, then, that j^- 
*' natius^ by his Presbyters and Presbytery^ or EU 
" dership^ means any thing else than a bench of 
" Ruling Elders in each Church." p. 14!r. This 
suggestion Dr. Bowden not only opposes with 
much zeal, but he also endeavours to cover it with 
ridicule, as perfectly frivolous and improbable. So 
far as he reasons on the point, the arguments which 
he employs are two. The frst is that ^' there is 
no proof whatever that there ever was such an or- 
der of men in the Church as Ruling Elders.'*^ Of 
the force of this argument you will be able to 
judge, after reading what has been advanced, and 
what is yet to come in proof of the Apostolic in- 
stitution of this class of officers. The second ar- 
gument, is that ^' the Epistles of Ignatius are totally 
inconsistent with such a notion." Now, I think, 
in direct opposition to Dr. B. that the Epistles of 
Igriatius are strongly in favour qf this " notion.*' 
When that Father says, ^^ It is not lawful, without 



Ruling Elders. 135 

" the Bishop, either to baptize, or to celebrate the 
" holy communion," it is evident that his Presby- 
ters could not have been the same with those who 
bear that title in modern Episcopal Churches, who 
in virtue of their original commission, and without 
any subsequent permission of the Bishop, are em* 
powered, at all times, and in all places, when called 
upon, to administer both Baptism and the Lord's 
Supper. Again; \g\itvi Ignatius says, "Let that 
'^ Eucharist be looked upon as valid, which is ei- 
" ther offered by the Bishops or by him to whom 
" the bishop has given his consent ;" Dr. Bowden 
chooses to take for granted that the person to whom 
the Bishop might give his consent and who, with 
that consent, might dispense the Eucharist, was one 
of the Presbyters whom Ignatius distinguishes 
from the Bishop. But this is not said by Ignatius; 
he might mean the Bishop of some neighbouring 
congregation. There is not a single instance in 
which the pious Father represents his Presby- 
ters as, infact^ preaching or administering Sacra- 
ments. But even supposing his Presbyters to be 
Ruling Elders^ and supposing him to mean, that 
they^ with the Bishop's (or Pastor's) leave, might 
administer both sacraments ; this would only show 
that Ignatius was in an error, as Tertullian was 
after him, who, in his work de Baptisrno^ after as- 
serting that the administration of Baptism was ap» 
propriated to the office of Bishop, does not scruple 
to say, that even a Layman may baptize with the Bi- 
shop's leave. There is, then, nothing in the Epis- 

M 



134 LETTER IV. 

ties of Ignatius at all inconsistent with the suppo- 
sition that a portioffl or even the whole of his Pres- 
byters were Ruling Elders^ whose official duty it 
was to assist the Pastor in maintaining order and 
discipline in the Church. 

It is no solid objection to this argunaent from 
the Fathers, that they sometimes mention these 
Elders after the Deacons^ as if the former were 
inferior to the latter. Nothing can be inferred 
from a fact of this kind» Ignatius^ speaking of the 
different classes of Church officers, expresses him- 
self thus : " Let all reverence the Deacons as Je- 
" sus Christ ; and the Bishop as the Father ; and 
" the Presbyters as the Sanhedrim of God, and 
^^ college of the Aposdes." But, notwithstanding 
the extravagance and impiety of this exhortation, 
did any one ever suppose that Ignatius designed 
to represent Deacons as a higher order than 5i- 
shops^ In like manner, Clemens Alexandrinus 
speaks of '' Presbyters^ Bishops^ and Deacons ;'''^ 
but who ever dreamed that any inference with re- 
spect to the order of authority was to be drawn 
from this arrangement? Again ; Dr. Bowden ob- 
jects, that ^' Ignatius makes the Deacons a branch 
^^ of the Ministry ; but every branch of the Mi- 
^^ nistry had authority to j&re'^c/z; consequently the 
*' Deacons^ instead of being inferior to the Ruling 
^' Elders^ must have been superior to them." This 
objection is of as litde force as the last. It is no- 
torious that the word Ministry^ both in Scripture 
and the writings of the Fathers, is by no means 



Ruling Elders. 135 

confined to the Clergy^ but is frequently employed 
to express any kind of official service rendered to 
the Church. To produce instances in support of 
this position is needless. Every well-informed 
Divine knows it to be so. When, therefore, the 
word Ministry^ unaccompanied with any distinc- 
tive epithet, is applied either to Elders or Deacons^ 
it no more implies a power to preach, or adminis- 
ter sealing ordinances, nor does it throw any more 
light on the point of order and precedence, than 
the general word officer. 

Having seen that both Scripture and the Fathers 
afford a clear warrant for the office of Ruling or 
Lay Elders in the Church; let us next inquire 
whether the Reformers ^^nd other distinguished 
witnesses for the truth, in different ages and coun- 
tries, declared for or agaiiist this office. I know 
that the authority of the Reformers is not to be 
considered, any more than that of the Fathers^ as a 
rule either of faith or practice ; but when we re- 
collect the great talents, the profound learning, the 
fervent piety, and the eminent services of many of 
those distinguished men, in clearing away the er- 
rors of Popery, and restoring the faith and or- 
der of the Primitive Church, we cannot fail to 
acknowledge that their opinions and decisions are 
worthy of high regard. It is w^orth while, there- 
fore, to inquire what those opinions and decisions 
were, with respect to the question before us. 

John Paul Perrin^ the celebrated historian of 
the Waldenses^ and who was himself one of the 



136 LETTER IV. 

Ministers of that people, in a number of places 
recognizes the office of Ruling Elder as retained 
In their Churches. He expressly and repeatedly 
asserts, that the Synods of the Waldenses^ long be- 
fore the time of Luther^ were composed of Minis' 
ters and Elders ^. 

The same writer tells us, that, in the year 1467, 
the Hussites being engaged in reforming and se- 
parating their Churches from the Church of Rorne^ 
understood that there were some Churches of the 
ancient Waldenses in Austria^ in which the purity 
of the Gospel was retained, and in which there 
were many eminent Pastors. In order to ascer- 
tain the truth of this account, they (the Hussites J 
sent two of their Ministers with tiuo Elders to 
inquire into, and know what those flocks or Con- 
gregations weref. 

The same Historian, in the same work, speaks 
of " the Ministers and Elders of the Bohemian 
Churches J.'* 

The testimony of Perrin is supported by that of 
Gillis^ another historian of the Waldenses^ and al- 
so one of their Pastors. In the Confession of 
faith \ of that people, inserted at length in the 
" Addition" to his work, it is declared, (p. 490. 



* Hist, of the old Waldenses, Part ii. Book ii. Chap. 4. 

t Md, Chap. 10. 

t Il?id, Chap. 9. 

§ This Confession, Gillis expressly declares to have been 
the Confession of the ancient, as well as the modern Wal- 
dense$. 



Ruling Elders* 137 

Art. 31.) that " It is necessary for the Church 
*^ to have Pastors to preach God's word, to admi- 
'' nister the Sacraments, and to watch over the 
" sheep of Jesus Christ ; and also Elders and 
'' Deacons^ according to the rules of good and 
*' holy Church discipline, and the practice of the 
" Primitive Church^'^ 

Here, then, is direct and unquestionable testi- 
mony that the Waldenses^ the Hussites^ and the 
Bohemian Brethren^ had Ruling- Elders in their 
Churches long before Calvin was born. Yet Cal' 
vin^ we are gravely told by Dr. Boxvden and his 
friends, was the inventor of this class of Church 
officers ! I cannot help thinking that a " learned 
*' man," and a " scholai-," (a character v/hich Dr. 
B. often impliedly assumes to himself) ought to 
have taken care to be better informed before he 
ventured to make such an assertion. 

But we have still more pointed evidence that 
the Churches which ecclesiastical historians have 
generally distinguished by the title of the Bohe- 
mian Brethren^ and which flourished before the 
time of Luther^ bore their testimony in favour of 
the office of Ruling Elder ^ by retaining it, amidst 
all the degeneracy of the times. This fact is at- 
tested by Martin Bucer^ a learned Lutheran Di- 
vine, whose fame induced Archbishop Cramner to 
invite him to England^ where he received prefer- 
ment and patronage, and was held in high estima- 
tion. He speaks of it in the following terms : 

" The Bohemian Brethren^ who published a 
M 2 



158 LETTER IV. 

" Confession of their faith in the year 1535, with 
" a preface by Luther^ and who almost alone pre- 
^^ served in the world the purity of the doctrine^ 
*' and the vigour of the discipline of Christ, ob- 
" serv^ed an excellent rule, for which we are com- 
*' pelled to give them credit, and especially to 
^' praise that God who thus wrought by them ; 
" notwithstanding those brethren are preposte- 
** rously despised by some learned men. The 
" rule which they observed was this: besides 
^' ministers of the word and sacraments, they had, 
^' in each Church, a bench or college of men ex- 
'' celling in gravity and prudence, who performed 
*' the duties of admonishing and correcting of- 
^' fenders, composing differences, and judicially 
" deciding in cases of dispute. Of this kind of 
" Elders, Hilary CAmbj'oseJ wrote, when he 
" said, " Therefore the Synagogue, and after- 
" wards the Church had Elders, without whose> 
'' counsel nothing was done ^." 

The celebrated Peter Martyr^ a Protestant Di- 
vine of Italy^ whose high reputation induced Ed-- 
xvard VI. to invite him into England^ where he 
was made Professor of Divinity at Oxford^ and 
Canon of Christ Churchy speaks of Riding Elders 
in the following decisive terms : " The Church," 
(speaking of the Primitive Church) " had its 
*^ Elders^ or if I may so speak, its Senate^ who- 

* Scripta duo, Adversaria Latovu, hc,\n Odi.]}, Dje Eccles, 
Authoritat. p. 159. 



Ruling Elders. 139 

" consulted about things that were for edification 
" for the time being. Paul describes this kind of 
" ministry, not only in the 12th Chapter of the 
" Epistle to the Romans^ but also in the first Epis- 
" tie to Timothy^ where he thus writes, Let the 
" Elders that rule well be counted worthy of dou- 
*' ble honour^ especially those that labour in the 
'' word and doctrine* Which words appear to me 
'^ to signify, that there were then some Elders 
'^ who taught and preached the word of God i 
*'' and another class of Elders who did not teach^ 
" but only ruled m the Church. Concerning these 
" Ambrose speaks, when he expounds this passage 
^' in Timothy. Nay, he inquires whether it was 
" owing to the pride or the sloth of the sacerdotal 
" order that they had then almost ceased in the 
" Church^.'' 

In the Confession of Saxony ^ drawn up by 3Ie^ 
lancthon^ in 1551, and subscribed by a large num* 
ber of Lutheran Churches, we find this class of 
Church Officers, recognized, and represented as in 
use in those Churches. Speaking of the exercise 
of discipline, in its various parts, they say — *' That 
" these things may be done orderly, there be also 
^' Consistories appointed in our Churches^ Of 
these Consistories^ the principal members, it is well 
known, were Ruling Elders. 

That there were Ruling Elders in the Primitive 
Church, is also explicitly granted by Archbishop 

* P, Martyris Loci Communes. Class i v. Cap .i. Sect. 2. 



140 LETTER IV. 

Whitgift^ a warm and learned friend of Diocesan 
Episcopacy. " I know," says he, " that in the Pri- 
" mitive Church, they had in every Church certain 
*' Seniors^ to whom th^ govemmeiit of the Congre- 
'' gation was committed ; but that was before there 
*' was any Christian Prince or Magistrate that open- 
" ly professed the Gospel ; and before there was 
'^ any Church by public authority established.'' 
And again, " Both the names and offices oi Seniors 
" were extinguished before Ambrose his time, as 
" he himself doth testify, writing upon iht Jifth of 
" the first Epistle to Thnothy* Indeed, as Am- 
^' brose saith, the Synagogue^ and after the Church, 
" had Seniors^ without whose counsel nothing was 
'' done in the Church ; but that was before his 
t^ time^ and before there was any Christian Ma- 
'' gistrate, or any Church established^." 

Szegedin^ a very eminent Lutheran Divine, of 
Hungary^ contemporary with Luther^ also speaks 
decidedly of the Apostolic institution of Ruling 
Elders. I'he following passage is sufficient to ex- 
hibit his sentiments. " The ancient Church had 
'' Presbyters or Elders^ of which the Apostle 
" speaks, 1 Corinth, 5. 4. And these Elders 
" w^ere of txvo kinds. One class of them preach- 
" ed the Gospel, administered the Sacraments, 
" and governed the Church, the same as Bishops ; 
'^ for Bishops and Presbyters are the same order. 
*' But another class of Elders consisted of grave 

* Defence against Cart-wright, p. 638. 651. 



Ruiino- Elders. _ 141 



Ci 



'' and upright men, taken from among the Laity, 
" who, together with the Preaching Elders be- 
" fore mentioned, consulted respecting the affairs 
^^ of the Church, and devoted their labour to ad- 
" monishing, correcting, and taking care of the 
" flock of Christ^." 

Hieronymus Kromaye'i\ a learned Lutheran Di- 
vine, and Professor of Divinity in the University 
of Leipsic^ who lived in the age immediately fol- 
lowing that of Luther^ bears decided testimony to 
the Apostolic institution of Ruling Elders. " The 
" title of Bishop," says he, " takes its name from 
" a Greek word, v/hich signifies an Overseer. 
*' This title differs from that of Presbyter^ be- 
" cause the latter is taken from age. Of Presby^ 
" ters or Elders there were formerly Hvo kinds, 
" those who taught^ and those who exercised the 
" office of Riders in the Church. This is taught 
*' in 1 Timothy v. 17. Let the Elders that rule well 
^' be accounted xvorthy of double honour^ especially 
" those who labour in the word and doctrine. The lat* 
*' ter were the same as our Ministers^ at present \ the 
" former were like the members of our consistories 
" Jerome tells us that the practice of choosing one 
" to preside over the rest, was brought in as a re- 
" medy for schism \ so that a Bishop is nothing 
" more than the first Presbyter. This doctrine 
" is very offensive to the Papists ; but we have the 



* Szegedini Loci Communes^ p. 19/. Edit, quint. folio- 
Basil, 1608. 



142 LETTER IV. 

" word of God going before us, as a light and a 
" guide, and this plainly represents Presbyters 
" and Bishops as the same thing-^.'^^ 

The learned Voetius^ a German Divine of great 
eminence, also contends for the Apostolic institu* 
tion of Ruling Elders. He speaks of a number of 
Popish writers, as particularly warm and zealous 
in their opposition to this class of Church officers j 
*' Nor is this," says he, " any wonder, since no- 
" thing is more opposite to the Papal monarchy, 
" and anti-Christian tyranny, than is the institu- 
" tion of Ruling Elders." Voetius is of the opin- 
ion that the Church Wardens in the Church of 
England are the " vestiges" of these " Ruling 
*' Seniors^." 

Ursimis^ an eminent German Divine, who lived 
about the same time with Luther^ in enumerating 
the officers of the Church, as laid down in the 
word of God, speaks of Ruling' Elders and Dea» 
C071S. The former he defines to be officers " elect- 
" ed by the voice of the Church, to assist in con' 
" ducting discipline^ and to order a variety of ne- 
*' cessary matters in the Church." And the latter 
as officers, '' elected by the Church, to take care of 
" the poor^ and to distribute alms f ." 

After this view of the opinions of some of the 
most distinguished Reformers and others, in fa- 

* Historia Ecdesiastica Autore Ifieronymo Krotnayero, ID, 
D. & S. S. T. P. in Acad. Lips. 4to. p. 59. 
t Folit. Eccles. Par. ii. Lib. ii. Tract. 3 Cap. 4. Sect. 1. 2. 
t Corpus Doctrines. Par. iii. p. 721. 



Ruling Elders. 143 

vour of the office of Ruling Elders^ you will not be 
surprised to hear, that the great body of the Re- 
formed Churches adopted, and have always main- 
tained, this class of officers. Instead of being 
confined, as Dr. Boivden and his friends seem to 
imagine, to Geneva and Scotland^ they were gene- 
rally introduced, with the Reformation, by Luthe- 
rans as well as Ccdvinists ; and are generally re- 
tained to the present day, in almost all the Protes- 
tant Churches, excepting that of England. We 
have seen that the JValdenses^ the Hussites^ and 
the Bohemian Brethren had them long before Cal- 
vin was born. It is notorious that the Reformed 
Churches of Germany^ France^ Holland^ &c, re- 
ceived this class of Elders early, and expressly 
represented them in their public Confessions^ as 
founded on the word of God. And it is a fact 
equally notorious, that the Lutheran?,^ as well as 
the Presbyterians in our own country, have, at this 
hour. Lay Elders to assist in the government and 
discipline of the Church. The truth is, that at the 
period of the Reformation, three fourths of the 
whole Protestant world declared in favour of this 
class of Elders ; not merely as expedient^ but as 
appointed in the Apostolic Church, and as necessa* 
ry to be restored. And to the present tim.e a de- 
cided majority of Protestants maintain the same 
opinion and practice. 

Many of the objections against Ruling Elders^ 
on which my opponents lay the greatest stress, are 
entirely groundless, and arise from a total want of 



144 LETTER IV. 

acquaintance with the nature and duties of the of- 
fice. Mr. Hoxv speaks of them as officers invest- 
ed with " mere temporal functions." Now this is 
so far from being the case, that they are not invest- 
ed with " temporal functions" at all. Their office 
and duties are purely spirituaL Dr. Kemp repre- 
sents them as ^^ unordained" officers, and expresses 
much astonishment that I should insist on the 
Church having been organized after the model of 
the Synagogue^ since the Elders of the Synagogue 
were ordained^ while he asserts that those of the 
Presbyterian Church are 7iot. This gentleman 
gives us to understand that he was bred a Presby- 
terian, and speaks of it as one of the advantages 
which he enjoys in conducting the controversy. 
But, truly, he discovers, on a variety of occasions, 
that he left our Church without being acquainted 
with even the elementary principles of its govern- 
ment. To prove this I need not go further than 
the case under consideration. The fact is, that in 
every regular Presbyterian Church, Riding Elders 
are always ordained; sometimes with the imposi" 
tion of hands ^ and sometinaes without it. Both 
methods are in use, in different parts of Europe^ 
as v/ell as our own country. But an ordination, 
of some kind, is never omitted by those who act re- 
gularly. Perhaps Dr. Kemp would say, that the 
imposition of hands is essential to every ordina- 
tion ; and that, as we ordain our Ridiiig Elders 
more frequently without this ceremony than with it, 
he is warranted in representing them generally as 



Ruling Elders, 14o 

" unordained.*' If so, he is of a different mind 
from some of the most learned and pious bi- 
shops of the Church of England^ who have deci- 
ded that it is not the formality of laying on hands 
which constitutes the essence of a lawful vocation 
to office in the Church ; but the election and ap" 
pointment to the office ■^. 

Dr. Bowden makes an objection to the office of 
Ruling Elder^ as it exists in the Presbyterian 
Church, which I scarcely expected from so grave a 
reasoner. It is this : That if the office be such as 
we represent it, and the Scriptural warrant for it 
such as we are in the habit of quoting, especially 
if 1 Tim. v. 17. be considered as pointing out this 
class of Elders, that then there ought to be a sala* 
ry or some kind of temporal support annexed to 
the office. " But," he adds, " to put a Ruling 
" Elder in this respect, upon a footing with a mi- 
^' nister of the word, is altogether preposterous. 



* When I be,^an these sheets, it was my intention to take 
notice of all the tnaterial points in the Letters of Dr. Kemp, 
as well as in the writings of my other opponents ; and ac- 
cordingly I made a kind of engagement to do so, in a former 
Letter. But I had not gone far on this plan, before it became 
apparent that fulfilling my engagement would be equally use- 
less and irksome. The fact is, that the " Rector of Great 
•* Choptank^^ has scarcely stated a single objection or argu- 
ment, but what has been exhibited with more plausibility 
and strength by Dr. Boviden, In refuting the latter, there- 
fore, \he former is, of course, refuted. On this account I beg 
to be excused in future, for passing over the attack of Dr. 
Ktmpm silence. 

N 



146 LETTER IV. 

*' And I am convinced that your Congregations 
" would think it so, were it proposed to allow the 
" Ruling Elders as ample a salary as they do their 
^' ministers, or any salary at all. Let the experi- 
'^ ment be made universally in your Churches, and 
" I will commit myself, that we shall never see the 
" face of a^z///;2^ £/</(?r again." 1.201. But what 
has this to do with the Apostolic institution of the 
Ruling Elder'^s office ? Suppose it conceded, that a 
compensation ought to be made to this class of of- 
ficers, for their services ; and suppose it also con- 
ceded, that no such compensation is ever, in facty 
made ; will it follow that such officers cannot be of 
divine appointment? Dr. B. would think it strange 
reasoning in any man to infer, that, because the 
labourer is worthy of his hire^ his clerical commis- 
sion depends on the payment of his salary ; and 
that if the one should be withdrawn, the other 
would cease with it. Did the Apostle Paul cease 
to be a Minister of Jesus Christ because he labour- 
ed^ xvorking with his own hands^ that he might not 
be chargeable io any ; while, at the same time, he 
declared, that they who serve at the altar ^ should 
live by the altar ? Nothing can be more absurd than 
to suppose it. Yet this, even conceding the fact 
for which Dr. B. contends, is the amount of his 
, whole argument. 

But the fact cannot be conceded. If Dr. Bow^ 
den had been as well acquainted with the Presbyte- 
rian Church, as a discreet man would have taken 
care to be, before he suffered himself to speak so 



Muling Elders. 1^ 

confidently on the subject, he would have known, 
that a compensation for their services has often 
been made to Ruling Elders ; and that the nature 
and amount of this compensation, depend on the 
circumstances of the Elders themselves, and of the 
Church which they serve. 

But, leaving this collateral inquiry, it is time 
that we should return to the main question \ which 
shall be resumed in the next Letter. 



( 148 ) 



LETTER V. 



Testimony of the Fathers. 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

In my former volume, while I insisted that the 
eause in question should be tried at the bar of 
Scripture alone, and utterly protested against the 
jurisdiction of the Fathers^ I still consented to ex- 
amine their testimony, and devoted two long Let- 
ters to that examination. In those Letters, if 
more impartial judges, as well as myself, are not 
deceived, there is abundant proof, that the Fathers 
of the FIRST TWO CENTURIES, do not contain a sen- 
tence that can be justly construed in favour of Pre- 
lacy ; but that, on the contrary, theif testimony is 
decisively favourable to Presbyterian parity. Dr. 
Bowden^ indeed, is of a different opinion, and 
speaks with great confidence and asperity in a dif- 
ferent strain. But after the specimen which has 
been given of the manner in which that gentleman 
can treat demonstrative proof, and even plain de- 
clarations of Scripture, we need not wonder that, 
in his eyes, every argument is " frivolous," and 
even " contemptible cavilling," which opposes his 
Episcopal creed. 



Te&tlmony of the Fathers. 149 

I have neither the leisure nor the patience again 
to go over the whole ground ot the testimony of 
the Fathers on this subject. My only design in 
the present Letter, is, vi^ith great brevity, to exam- 
ine a few of the strictures of Dr. Boxvden ; to 
confirm some of my statements which have been 
most confidently and boldly called in question ; and 
to supply some of the defects of my former Let- 
ters on this i^art of the controversy. 

Suffer me, my brethren, again to remind you of 
the principle on which we proceed, in this part of 
our inquiry. If it could be demonstrated from the 
writings of the Fathers, that, in one hundred, or 
even in fifty years, after the death of the last 
Apostle, the system of Diocesan Episcopacy had 
been generally adopted in the Church, it would be 
nothing to the purpose. As long as no traces of 
this fact could be found in the Bible, but much 
of a directly opposite nature, we should stand on 
a secure and immoveable foundation. To all rea- 
sonings, then, derived from the Fathers^ I answer 
with the venerable Augustine^ who, when pressed 
with the authority of Cyprian^ replied, " His wri- 
" tings I hold not to be canonical, but examine 
" them by the canonical writings : And in them, 
" what agreeth with the authority of Divine Scrip- 
" ture, I accept, with his praise \ what agreeth 
'' not, I reject with his leave^.'' 

But our refusal to be tried by the Fathers, is 



Contra Crescoiu ii. Cap. 32. 

N 2 



150 LETTER V- 

founded on principle^ and not upon any fear of the 
result of such a trial. We know what their wri- 
tings contain ; and are sure that our Episcopal bre- 
thren would lose instead of gaining, by an impar- 
tial examination of their testimony. We are per- 
fectly ready^ then, to meet Dr. Bozuden or any other 
man, and to hear what he has to say on this depart- 
ment of evidence. 

In entering on this branch of the controversy in 
my former Letters, I made the follov^ing remarks : 
" Before we proceed to examine the testimony 
of the Fathers^ let us be careful to recollect pre- 
cisely, what our Episcopal brethren contend for, 
and what they are bound to prove by these witnes- 
ses, in order to make good their claims. When 
they show us passages in which these early writers 
merely speak of Bishops^ they seem to imagine 
that their point is gained : but such passages are, 
in fact, nothing to their purpose. We do not deny 
that there were Bishops in the Primitive Church : 
on the contrary, we contend that the word Bishop 
was a title given, in Apostolic times and long af- 
terwards, to every pastor of a particular congre- 
gation. Again, when they quote passages which 
barely enumerate Bishops^ Presbyters^ and Deacons^ 
as distinct officers in the Cliurch, they can derive 
no assistance even from these ; because there were, 
doubtless. Presbyters^ at that time, as well as now, 
whq, though mfull orders^ were not invested with 
a pastoral charge; and who must, therefore, be 
distinguished from such as were literally Overseers 



Testimony of the Fathers, 151 

or Bishops of particular flocks. Besides, we know- 
that there were Ruling Elders in the primitive 
Church ; a class of Presbyters confessed to be in- 
ferior to Bishops in their ecclesiastical character. 
In enumerating Church officers, then, there was 
frequently a necessity for making the distinction 
above stated, without in the least favouring the pre- 
tended superiority of order among those v/ho laboured 
in the word and doctrine. No ; the advocates for dio- 
cesan Episcopacy, if they would derive any support 
to their cause from the writings of the Fathers, must 
do what they have never yet done. They must pro- 
duce, from those venerable remains of antiquity, pas- 
sages which prove, either by direct assertion, or 
fair inference, that the Bishops of the Primitive 
Chmxh were a distinct order of Clergy from those 
Presbyters who were authorized to preach and ad- 
minister sacraments, and superior to them ; that 
%h€se Bishops^ when they were advanced to this su- 
perior office, had a new and distinct ordination ; 
that each Bishop had under him a number of 
congregations, with their Pastors, whom he go- 
rerned; that these Bishops were exclusively in- 
vested with the right of ordaining^ and admi- 
nistering the rite of confirmation; and that this 
kind of Episcopacy was considered, by the xvhok 
primitive Church, as an institution of Jesus Christ. 
When any one of these facts is fairly proved, from 
early antiquity, the friends of Presbyterian Church 
Government will feel as if they had something like 
solid argument to contend with \ but not till then. 



152' LETTER V. 

No\y, after having given much close and serious at- 
tention to this subject, I can venture to assure you, 
that in all the authentic writings which have come 
down to us, of those Fathers w^ho lived within the 
first two hundred years after Christ, there is not a 
single seyitence which can be considered, by an im- 
partial reader, as affording the least support to any 
one of these positions." 

Of these remarks I cannot find that Dr, BoW' 
den has taken the least notice. He goes on, fall- 
ing into the very errors, against which he was thus 
explicitly warned; and confidently urging the very 
arguments which are here shown to be worthless. 
For instance, when he finds one of the early Fa- 
thers speaking of a particular person as Bishop of 
a certain Church, he immediately takes for grant- 
ed that a Prelatical Bishop was intended, and de- 
claims accordingly with all the parade of complete 
triumph. But this is a gross and most unwarranta- 
ble begging of the question. The word Bishop un- 
questionably decides nothing in his favour; for 
Dr. B. and all our opponents, acknowledge, what 
we know to have been the fact, that this title was 
applied, in the days of the Apostles, and is ex- 
pressly used by the inspired writers, to designate 
the Pastors of single Congregations. Nay, they 
acknowledge, that for near an hundred years after 
the Apostolic age, the titles of Bishop and Pres-' 
hyter were often interchangeably appHed to the 
same persons. When we attempt to derive an ar- 
gument from the application of the title Bishop to 



Testimony of the Fathers* 155 

the Pastors of single Churches, which is undoubt- 
edly to be found in Scripture, they do not attempt 
to deny the fact ; but insist that the argument from 
names is of no value. But why is it of more va- 
lue in one case than another? If a iiame decides 
nothing when found in the Bible^ it decides no- 
thing when found in the Fathers. When, there- 
fore, so much is made of the mere insulated title 
of Bishops when found in the early writers, it is 
mere imposition on vulgar credulity. No infer- 
ence can be legitimately drawn from it, in the 
least degree favourable to the Episcopal cause. 

Again; when Dr. B. finds Bishops^ Presbijters^ 
and Deacons^ mentioned separately, and distin- 
guished from each other, in some of the early 
Fathers, he never fails immediately to rush to the 
conclusion, that different orders or ranks of clergy 
were intended by this distinct enumeration. But 
this conclusion is no less illogical and groundless 
than the former. Dr. B. knows, or ought to know, 
that, on Presbyterian principles, though every Bu 
shop is a Presbyter^ yet every Presbyter is not a 
Bishop ; since no man can, with propriety, accord- 
ing to our system, receive the latter title unless he 
have the Pastoral charge of a Congregation. Wc 
have satisfactory proof that there were, in the Pri- 
mitive Church, Clergymen in full orders^ that is, 
empowered to preach and administer sacraments, 
who yet had no Pastoral charge ; but acted the 
part of Assistants or Curates to the Pastor^ Rec» 
tor^ or Bishop. Now, in what manner could such 



15<^ LETTER V. 

persons be distinguished from those who were in- 
vested with a Pastoral charge, but by calling the 
one class Bishops, and the other Presbyters? In 
the Presbyterian Church, we distinguish them in 
this manner ; and in the Church of England^ they 
distinguish them by calling the former Rectors^ 
and the latter Curates. And with just as much 
reason might some person, five hundred years 
hence, assert that Pastors and Assistant Presby-^ 
ters^ or Rectors and Curates^ were different orders 
of Clergy in the eighteenth century ; as Dr. BoiV' 
den can now insist that Bishops and Presbyters were 
different orders in the primitive Church. The 
argument is totally delusive ; nor could it have 
been so often and so gravely repeated, had there 
not been, on the part of those who have urged it, 
a miserable deficiency of sounder proof. 

But further; I have proved, in the foregoing 
Letter, that there w^ere Ridings as well as Teaching 
Presbyters, or Elders^ in the Apostolic Church, and 
for several centuries after the Apostolic age. It 
was, doubtless, necessary, sometimes at least, to 
speak of this class of officers, as distinguished 
from those who, in the character of Pastors^ 
preached and administered Sacraments. And 
what method of making this distinction was 
more convenient than that which we now employ, 
when we divide our Church officers into three ge- 
neral classes, vis. Bishops^ Elders^ and Deacons? 
In whatever point of light, then, we view this 
three-fold distinction, which is sometimes met 



Testitnony of the Fathers. 155 

with in'the early writers, it cannot, in the smallest 
degree, serve the cause of Prelacy* 

Dr. Bowden makes a number of complaints re- 
specting my manner of stating the testimony of 
the Fathers. I shall consider, and endeavour to 
answer these complaints, before I proceed to exhi- 
bit such further testimony from those early writers, 
as appears to me favourable to the doctrine of 
Presbyterian parity. 

He complains, in the first place, that I have 
omitted to state some material testimony from wri- 
ters of the second century. He evidently intimates, 
that this omission was designed ; and that it is a 
very important one ; and undertakes to supply it 
by bringing forward a few detached scraps from 
three early writers. These v/riters are Dionysius^ 
Polycrates^ and Hegesippus. To render the charge 
of omission more serious, the Doctor inserts it in 
a long and solemn list of accusations, to which 
he endeavours to give as much point as possible, at 
the close of his work. 

This charge surprises me, on a variety of ac- 
counts. Had 1 professed to give all the testimo- 
ny, which the first two centuries furnish. Dr. B. 
might justly have complained of any omission. 
But when no such profession was made ; when 
the contrary was distinctly announced ; when I 
formally, and more than once stated, that not the 
xvhole^ but the great body of the strongest and most 
important testimony was intended to be brought 
forward; and when, from the vsry nature and 



156 LETTER V. 

size of my work, nothing more than 2i selection^ 
and even that a very limited one, was possible; 
it is more than wonderful that an imputation so se- 
rious should be advanced, even if I had omitted to 
produce passages of real importance. But this is 
far from being the case. The passages concern- 
ing which so formal and heavy a complaint is 
made, will be found, on examination, to be of 
no solid value to the advocates of Episcopacy. 
What do these writers say? Why, Dionysius^ 
who lived about the year 170, and whose wri- 
tings are all lost, excepting a few sentences, 
preserved by Eusebius^ is represented by that his- 
torian as speaking of several persons as Bishops of 
particular Churches. Polycrates^ also, who lived 
about the year 180, and of whose writings we 
have nothing except a fragment or two, preserved 
by a v/riter who lived long after him, simply says, 
that Timothy was ordained Bishop of Ephesus^ by 
the great Paul; speaks of Polycarp as Bishop of 
Smyrna; and of himself and six others, as having 
been Bishops of Ephesus^ in succession, after Ti- 
mothy. And Hegesippusy contemporary with Po- 
lycratesy of whom nothing remains, but a few 
detached sentences, recorded by Eusebius^ only 
says that one Primus was Bishop of Corinth; 
that AniceiuSy Soter^ and Eleutherius Were suc- 
cessively Bishops of Rome; and that James 
was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem^ because 
he was the Lord's near kinsman. But what 
is the amount of this testimony? It is really 



Testimcny of the Father s^ 157 

too frivolous to be treated with respect. What 
Presbyterian ever doubted that there were Bhhops^ 
in the primitive Church; not only in Jerusalemj 
Ephesus^ Corinth^ and Rome^ but also in every 
other city or town on the globe, where a congre- 
gation of Christians was organized ? And when 
it has not only been demonstrated, but also acknow- 
ledged by our opponents, that the word Bishop was 
applied, in the days of the Apostles, and for a 
considerable time afterwards, to those who vv^ere 
not Prelates, it is really something worse than tri- 
fling, still to insist upon an argument founded upon 
an equivocal tide, and only calculated to insult the 
discerning, or to deceive the unwary. 

But why did Dr. Boxuden mention the testimo- 
ny of three Fathers only, as having been omitted ? 
Why did he not enumerate Bachyllus of Corinth^ 
Serapioriy and others, in the second century, who 
are represented as having left writings, in which, 
though now lost, the word Bishop was found ? The 
truth is, I considered all this testimony as vague 
and irrelevant ; and am still confident, that in the 
selection of testimony from the Fathers of the 
first two centuries, which I professed to make, I 
did full justice to the Episcopal side of the ques- 
tion. There was no passage omitted which can be 
considered as speaking more forcibly in their fa- 
vour, than several which were exhibited ; nor any 
which wear, in my opinion, so plausible an aspect, 
as some which I candidly brought forward. Nor 
can I believe that Dr. Boxvden would have com» 

O 



158 LETTER V. 

plained so loudly of the omission of testimony, 
had he not felt that every scrap which bears the 
most distant appearance of plausibility, is necessa- 
ry to assist his cause. 

With respect to another charge of Dn Bowden^ 
that I have omitted to produce certain testimony 
from some of the Fathers of the third and fourth 
centuries, it is scarcely worthy of an answer. In 
entering on this part of the controversy in my for^ 
mer Letters, I made the following explicit decla- 
ration : 

" In examing the writings of the Fathers, I 
" shall admit only the testimony of those w^ho 
*' wrote within the first two centuries. Im- 
*^ mediately after this period so many corruptions 
'^ began to creep into the Church ; so many of the 
" most respectable Christian writers are known to 
*' have been heterodox in their opinions ; so much 
*^ evidence appears, that even before the com- 
" mcncement of the third century, the Papacy be- 
*' gan to exhibit its pretensions ; and such multi^ 
" plied proofs of wide spreading degeneracy crowd 
^^ intoview, that the testimony of every subsequent 
*^' writer is to be received with suspicion. Besides, 
^* if diocesan Episcopacy existed, and were of the 
^^ fundamental importance that our Episcopal bre? 
" thren make it to be, we may surely expect to 
*^* find some reference to it in the records of two 
** hundred years; and especially when we consi'? 
^' der that those were years of the greatest simpli'^ 
^^ city and purity ever known to the Church.'' AU 



Testimony of the Fathers. 159 

ter such a declaration, who would have expected to 
find it imputed to me, as an unfair proceeding, 
that I had not exhibited the whole testimony of 
the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries ; es- 
pecially after conceding, in the most unequivocal 
manner, that clerical imparity had begun to appear 
in the thirds and was established in the fourth cen- 
tury? But I forbear. To take up your time in 
replying to cavils of this nature, even if one had 
patience enough for the purpose, would ba equally 
irksome and useless. 

In my former Letters, I omitted to examine the 
testimony of the Apostolical Canons^ and the Apos^ 
iolical Constitutio7is ; and assigned as a reason for 
the omission that I considered them as spurious 
and unworthy of credit. With this omission, and 
the reason for it, Dr. Boxvden is much offended. 
He does not, indeed, attempt to establish the au- 
thenticity of the Apostolical Constitutions ; but for 
that of the Canons he contends with ardent zeal. 
He charges me with having " vilified" them ; and 
thinks, if I had ever read Beveridge*s defence of 
them, I should have been more " cautious" and 
** modest." I beg leave to inform my " learned*^ 
antagonist, that I am not an entire stranger to Be- 
veridge^s work, and that after weighing his argu- 
ments as impartially as I can, I am still so *** incau- 
" tious" and " immodest" as to believe that these 
Canons are not what they profess to be, Beveridge 
himself does not contend that they w^ere made by 
the Apostles ; and Dr. Boxvden acknov/ledges the 



160 LETTER V. 

same thing. They are not, therefore, Apostolical 
Canons, The learned Daille is of the opinion 
that they were not compiled till the ^fifth century ; 
B io nclel d^tts their compilation towards the close of 
the third century; and even Beveridge himself, 
their most partial defender, supposes them to be 
the decrees of Synods in the second and third 
centuries, collected at different times, and by dif- 
ferent hands. Now, so far as they belong to the 
Mir^ century, the line which I have drawn excludes 
them from my notice. When Dr. Boxvden can de- 
cide zvhich of them were formed in the second 
century, and which of them are of a later date, I 
shall consider myself as bound by my plan to ext 
amine the former class, and not before. 

But, if I do not mistake, some imputations may 
be brought against both the " caution" and the 
" modesty'^ of Dr. Boxvden himself, in this busi- 
ness. It would be easy to produce a number 
of Episcopal writers, of the highest reputation 
for talents and learning, who have, without cere- 
mony, pronounced the Apostolical Canons^ as well 
as the Apostolical Constitutions^ to be destitute of 
authenticity. Dr. B. certainly could not have 
been acquainted with these writers, of his own 
Church ; as it is not supposable that he would set 
tip his judgment in opposition to theirs. Among 
others, Bishop Taylor^ who was at least as compe- 
tent a judge as Dr. B. speaks of the writings in 
question in the following language : 



u 



Testimony of the Fathers* 161 

^* Even of the fifty CCano7isJ which are most 
*' respected, It is evident that there are some things 
" so mixed \yith them, and no mark of difference 

left, that the credit of all is much impaired; in- 
*' somuch that Isidore^ of Seville^ says, " they 
" were apocryphal^ made by hereticks, and pub- 
" lished under the title Apostolical; but neitheV 
" the Fathers nor the Church of Ro7ne did give 
*' assent to them*." 

Dr. Bowden not only charges me with omitting 
to state the testimony of some Fathers, but also 
with jnisrepresenting that of others. Most of the 
instances which he produces in support of this 
charge, do not appear to me entitled to any reply. 
Of a it\Y^ however, it may be proper to take a 
cursory notice. 

He asserts that I have misrepresented the testi- 
mony of Ignatius ; but wherein does this misre« 
presentation consist? Dr. Boxvden v^'^^ XioX. dare to 
deny that my quotations from that Father are lar- 
ger and more numerous than his own ; nor will he 
dare to deny, that I have selected, and fairly exhi- 
bited, those very quotations which high churchmen 
have generally adduced as, in their view, most de- 
cisive in favour of Prelacy. In what respect, then, 
have I been guilty of misrepresentation P He will 
probably reply that my comments on the testimony of 
Ignatius are unfair. The best answer to this charge 
will be a dispassionate review of those comments ; 

* Liberty of Frophesying^ Sect. 5, Art, 9, 
O ^ 



162 LETTER V, , ^ 

and I will venture to say, that no one who takes 
this trouble, wiil find any thing in them but what 
is natural, probable, and abundantly warranted by 
the strain of the testimony itself. 

Ignatius^ indeed, speaks much of Bishops. But 
I have shown that this title furnishes no ground of 
argument in favour of Prelacy. He speaks much, 
too, of Bishops^ Presbyters^ and Deacons^ as distin- 
guished from each other : but I have also clearly* 
stiowti that this distinction is perfectly consistent 
with our doctrine of ministerial parity ; and that 
to represent it in a different light, is a mere beg- 
ging of the question in dispute. But I will go fur- 
ther, and again venture, with greater confidence 
than ever, to repeat my former assertion, that the 
Bishop so often mentioned by Ignatius is evidently 
a parochial and not a diocesan Bishop. If the 
Bishop to whom this Father refers, was the only 
person, in each Church, empowered to baptize^ 
and administer the Lord^s Slipper ; if no marriagt 
could take place without his knowledge and con- 
sent ; if it was considered as his duty to be per^ 
sonally acquainted with all his flock, to take notice 
with his own eye of those who v^tx^ present and 
absent at the time of public worship, to attend to 
the widoxvs and the poor of his congregation^ to 
seek out all by name^ and not to overlook even the 
men and rnaid^servants of the flock committed to 
his charge ; then, surely, no man in his senses can 
suppose that this officer could have beeri any other 
than a parochial Bishop or Pastor. I know that 



Testimony of the Failwrs* 163 

Dr. Boxvden Is of the opinion, and endeavours to 
show, that the duties which I have stated, are 
not all represented by Ignatius as belonging to his 
Bishop. I do not consider it as worth while to 
take up your time in discussing this point. Let 
any one look over the Epistles of Ignatius^ or if he 
cannot have access to them, let him look over the 
extracts which I have given in my former Letters, 
including these on which Dr. B. lays the greatest 
stress, and then let him say w^hether it is possible 
to reconcile the whole strain and language of that 
venerable Father with any other than parochial or 
Presbyterian Episcopacy ? For my part, though 
Dr. B. very delicately loads this suggestion with the 
terms " nonsense," ^' contemptible puerility," &c. 
I am persuaded every impartial reader will say, it 
is both sounder sense, and better logic, than this gen- 
tleman, with all his "scholar-like" management, has 
drawn from the testimony of the pious martyr. In 
short, Dr. Bowden may fume and fret as long and 
as much as he pleases, but, after all that he has 
said, or can say, nothing intelligible can be made of 
the Bishops Presbyters^ and Deacons of that Fa- 
ther, materially different from the Pastor^ Elders^ 
and Deacons of every regularly organized Presbyte- 
rian Church. 

Dr. Bowden supposes that Presbyterians consi- 
der the Bishop so often mentioned by Ignatius^ in 
no other light than as the Moderator^ som0ec- 
clesiastical assembly. Assuming this as our opin- 
ion, he attempts to pour ridicule upon it, by substi- 



164 . LETTER ¥• 

tutlng the word Moderator for Bishops and endea- 
vouring to show that the supposition is utterly in* 
consistent with the representation given of the du- 
ties of this officer. When a man does not compre* 
hend the subject which he attempts to ridicule, he 
is extremely apt to draw upon himself the laughter 
which he thought to turn against others. This is 
the unfortunate situation of Dr. Bowden. He 
seizes upon a detached fragment of Presbyterian 
doctrine ; and, imagining that he sees and under- 
stands the whole system, he thinks to involve that 
system, in the absurdity which he makes to recoil 
upon his own. 

Dr. Bowden ought to know, that Bishop and Mo^ 
derator are not convertible terms; and that they 
are not so considered by Presbyterians. We sup- 
pose, and believe it is easy to prove, that the word 
Bishop-, in the Apostolic age, signified, simply, the 
JPastor or Overseer of a flock, or single congrega- 
tion. Accordingly we conclude that there were 
several organized Churches both at Ephesus and 
Philippic in the days of the Apostles, because the 
Scriptures expressly tell us that, at that time, there 
were several Bishops in both those cities. We 
have shown, too, that each Church, in the days of 
the Apostles, was commonly furnished with a bench 
of Ruling Elders^ and Deacons^ We have also rea» 
son to believe, that, in large congregations, there were 
sev#al Eldets who, as "assistants, laboured in the 
worH and doctrine. The Pastor, that is the Pres^ 
byter who was particularly invested with the P^- 



Testimony of the Fathers. 165 

(oral charge, was "called the Bishop of that Church; 
and when the Eiders came together, and sat as a 
Church session^ or ecclesiastical court, he, ot course 
presided as their Moderator. It is easy to per- 
ceive, however, that this Bishop was equally such, 
both in fact^ and in naine^ whether he was ever cal- 
led to act as Moderator or not. The mere circum- 
stance of his having no bench of Elders, and no 
Church session in which to preside, did not destroy 
or affect his Pastoral character. We maintain, 
that there was no other species of Bishops during 
the time of the Apostles, than such as has been de- 
scribed, that is, the Pastor of a single flock or 
Church. ♦ 

But we suppose that, very early after the Apos- 
tle's days, when the congregations, and, of course, 
the Pastors, in large cities, became numerous, and 
frequently convened for the transaction of ecclesi- 
astical business, that the custom was adopted of 
choosing one person, generally the most aged and 
venerable of the number, to act as President^ Chair^ 
man^ or Moderator^ and that, after a while, the title 
of Bishop w^s^ by way of eminence conferred on 
him ; and, in process of time, gradually approprU 
ated to him. Hence it is a notorious fact, which 
our Episcopal brethren do not pretend to deny, 
that Bishops, in the second and third centuries, 
were frequently distinguished by the titles, presi- 
dent, CHAIRMAN, and the person who Jilled the 
yiRsT seat in the Presbytery. But this no more 
implied, nor, at that time, was considered as im- 



166 LETTER V. 

plying, a superiority of rank or order^ on the part 
of the Chairman^ than the olBce of Moderator in 
one of oiiY Presbyteries or Si^nods^ clothes the Pastor 
who fills it with a permanent superiority of order 
over his brethren. 

In some cities, however, it is evident that a dif- 
ferent plan was pursued. When the converts to 
the Christian faith became so numerous, that they 
were no longer able to worship in one assembly ; 
and especially when a number of persons from the 
neighbouring villages joined the city Church, some 
of these members began to lay plans for forming 
separate and smaller congregations nearer home. 
To this the Bishop consented, on condition that 
the little worshipping societies thus formed should 
consider themselves as still under his pastoral care, 
as amenable to the parent Church, and as bound 
to obey him as their spiritual guide. When the 
Pastor agreed to this arrangement, it was generally 
understood, that there should be but one Commu- 
nio7i tablcy^nd one Baptistery in the city or parish ; 
and, of course, that when the members of these 
neighbouring societies wished to receive either of 
the sacraments, they were to attend at the parent 
Church, and receive them from the hands of the 
Pastor or Bishop himself. The ordinary services 
of public worship on the Lord's day, were per- 
formed at little oratories^ or chapels of ease^ plant- 
ed at different and convenient places within the 
parish ; and on these, it was considered as suffi- 
cient for the assistant preachers, or curates to at- 



Testimony of the Fathers. 167 

tend. But at special seasons, at least once or 
twice in the year, every Church-member was held 
under obligations to attend the Mother Church, 
and commune with the Pastor himself. This was 
laying the foundation for the authority of one 
Bishop or Pastor over several distinctly organized 
congregations, which, not long afterwards, Vas 
claimed and yielded. 

We have specimens of a similar arrangement 
in modern times. Fifteen years ago all the Epis- 
copal inhabitants of the city of Nexv-Tork^ were 
under the pastoral care of the Rector of Trinity^ 
Church^ In the beginning, that Rector had only 
one Church under his inspection, and was himself 
the only Preacher in it. But when a second and a 
third were built, and a large congregation estab- 
lished in each, it w^as still thought proper to retain 
the whole under the care of one Pastor with several 
Assistants ; so that when there were three Episco- 
pal Churches, and probably from eight to ten thoii^ 
sand Episcopalians in the city, there w^as still but 
one Rector over the whole, with a number of As* 
sistant Clergymen^ w^ho were considered, and treat- 
ed as officially subordinate to him. Yet these Assise 
tant Clergymen had, in reality, the same ordination 
with xhitvc Rector ; were as perfectly qualified as 
himself, to take a Rectorate or Pastoral charge^ 
without any new ordination ; and were of the 
same ecclesiastical order^ although, as long as they 
retained this relation to him, they were his clergy^ 
gnd were under his control in all their professional 



168 LETTER V. 

services. The whole city was, to all intents and 
purposes, one parish^ and the Rector its ecclesiasti- 
cal head. 

That an arrangement substantially of this kind 
was frequent in the second and third centuries, is 
not merely a supposition of mine ; but is as- 
serted by a number of the best informed and most 
able advocates of Prelacy. The learned Mede^ a 
zealous Episcopal divine, in his Discourse on Church^ 
€S^ p. 48. says, " Nay, more than this, it should 
*' seem that in those first times, before dioceses 
" were divided into those lesser and subordinate 
^^ Churches, which we now call parishes, and Pres- 
" byters assigned to them, they had only one Altar 
" to a Church, taking Church for the company or 
*'. corporation of the faithful, united under one Bi^ 
" shop or Pastor ; and that was in the city or 
" place where the Bishop had his see and re- 
" sidence* Unless this were so, whence came it 
" else, that a schismatical Bishop was said, consti- 
" tuere or collocare aliud altare P And that a Bi" 
" shop and an Altar are made correlatives ?'' 

The same fact is asserted by Bishop Stillingjfteety 
in his Sermon against Separation. *^ Though, 
" when the Churches increased,*' says he, '^ the 
'^ occasional meetings were frequent in several 
" places ; yet still there was but one Church ; and 
^"^ one Altar^ and one Baptistery^ and one Bishops 
" with many Presbyters assisting him. Which, 
" is so plain, in antiquity, as to the Churches 
^^ planted by the Apostles themselves, that non^ 



Testimofiy of the Father^,: 16B 

^' but a great stranger to the history of the Church 
" can call it in question. 'Tis true, after some 
" time, in the greater cities, they had distinct 
" places allotted, and Presbyters fixed among 
" them. And such allotments were called Tituli 
" at Rome^ and Lauras at Alexandria^ and Parishes 
" in other places. But th^se were never thought, 
*' then, to be 7iexo Churches^ or to have any inde- 
*' pendent government in themselves, but were 
" all in subjection to the Bishop and his college of 
" Presbyters ; of which multitudes of examples 
^* might be brought from the most authentic testi- 
'^ monies of antiquity, if a thing so evident need- 
" ed any proof at all. And yet this distribution 
" (into distinct Tituli J even in cities, was looked 
" on as so uncommon in those elder times, that 
^' Epiphaiiius takes notice of it as an extraordina^ 
" ry thing at Alexandria; and, therefore, it is 
" probably supposed that there v/as no such thing 
" in all the cities of Crete in his time.'^ 

Accordingly Ignatius^ in his Epistle to the Phi* 
ladelphians^ declares, " There is, to every Church, 
'' one Altar y and one Bishop.''^ And he elsewhere 
represents it as a characteristic of the unity of a 
Church, that there is one Altar^ and one Bishop in 
each. Cyprian^ in like manner, repeatedly speaks 
of setting up a neT,v Altar^ or Communion table 
within the parish or diocese of a Pastor, without 
his leave, as irregular and schismatical. These 
facts perfectly agree with the declaration made by 
several of the Fathers, that administering the ordl- 

P 



170 LETTER V. 

nance of Baptism was considered as the appropru 
ate work of the Bishop within the bounds of his 
Church ; and also that the members of each church 
received the Lord''s Supper from no other hands 
than those of their Bishop. Accordingly Dr. Ham- 
mond^ a zealous friend of Prelacy, expressly affirmSj 
that in the days of TertulUan^ all Christians receiv- 
ed the Eucharist from no other than the Bishops 
hands^ ; and Dr. Heylin^ an Episcopalian of still 
higher tone, distinctly acknowledges the same 
factf. To suppose that these representations are 
consistent with the Episcopal arrangement, in which 
a number of distinct and independent congregations, 
each supplied with a Pastor or Rector^ are all un- 
der the government of a Prelate, in the habit of 
visiting each congregation once or twice ever}^ 
year, is manifestly absurd. They can only be re- 
conciled with a system in which, as in the Presby- 
terian Church, the Pastor or Bishop is made over- 
seer of a single Flock or Church; is ordinarily the 
sole dispenser of the word and ordinances in that 
Church ; and must be consulted, and his leave direct- 
ly or indirectly obtained, when others attempt to 
dispense them within his parish. 

We are now prepared to determine what kind of 
Bishop j^?2«^iw6- was, and in what sense the other 
contemporary Pastors were addressed by that Fa- 
ther under this title. If we suppose that in each 

* Disscrtat. lii. Cap. vii. J 5. 

7 Misury of JEpUcopacyy Part ii. p. 96, 97 



Testimony of the Fathers. 171 

qF the cities o( Antiochj Smyrna, &?c. there was only 
a singk congregation of Christians, then the case is 
plain. Those venerable ministers were only Pas- 
tors or Bishops of single flocks, in perfect conformi- 
ty with the Presbyterian model. But let us sup- 
pose that there were several large worshipping as- 
semblies of Christians in each of those cities. It 
is true, the epistles of Ignatius do not give the least 
hint that this was the case ; and we only infer it, 
from probable evidence, derived from other sources, 
without being able, on either side, to establish or 
to disprove the fact. Let it be admitted, however, 
that there were several worshipping assemblies in 
each of these cities ; still this fact proves nothing 
in favor of prelacy. Their Pastors might each 
have had several congregations under their care, 
and several clergymen to assist them, without be- 
ing Prelates, any more than the Rector of Trinity" 
Church thirty years ago was a Prelate. But we 
may go even further. Suppose it abundantly prov- 
ed, that in the days of Ignatius^ there were es- 
tablished in each of the cities of Antioch^ Smyr^ 
na, ^c. a number of separate and distinctly organ- 
ized congregations, and that each was under the 
care of a Pastor. And suppose it further proved 
that, notwithstanding this Ignatius was, by way of 
eminence, styled Bishop of Antioch, and Polycarp 
Bishop of Smyrna; still the fact, even if established, 
would be perfectly consistent with Presbyterian 
parity. We have only to suppose these men were 
Moderators of the respective Presbyteries of those 



172 



LETTEPw V. 



cities, and all is natural, intelligible, and probable. 
In this case, we may consider all the instructions 
concerning Bishops and ihcirjlochy which the epis^ 
ties in question contain, as raerely conveyed through 
the medium of the senior or presiding Pastor, to 
his colleagues, and as intended equally for all. 
Thus it appears that the epistles of Ignatius do 
not, on any supposition, contain a sentence which 
can be legitimately construed in favour of Prelacy ; 
and that all the confidence of my opponents in as- 
serting the contrary, is groundless and futile. 

Dr. Bowden is equally positive, that I have mis- 
represented the testimony of Irenccus. Here again 
I beg of you impartially to review the extracts 
which I gave from the writings of that Father, and 
my comments upon them, together with all that Dr. 
B. has said on the subject ; and then to decide be- 
tween us. It is plain, and Dr. B. does not deny, 
that Irenceus speaks of certain persons, by name, as 
Presbyters^ and represents them as successors of 
the Apostles. It is equally plain, that he speaks of 
the same persons, in another place, as Bishops^ and, 
under that title also, represents them as having the 
succession from the Apostles. He does this, not 
once merely, but several times, and with as much 
point, and apparent care, as rf his grand object had 
been to show that Presbyters and Bishops were 
then the same. The argument arising from this 
language is obviously in our favour. Dr. Boxvden^ 
indeed, thinks otherwise, and makes an attempt to 
answer it ; but his embarrassment, and inability to 



Testimony of the Fathers. 173 

accomplish his purpose, must be apparent to every 
reader. 

Dn Bowden lays much stress on a passage in 
Irenceus^ in which he speaks of these persons, whom 
he alternately calls Bishops and Presbyters^ as suc- 
ceeding the Apostles in their mastership. What 
is mastership? Simply, ojicial authority. And 
what has this to do with Prelacy ? Nothing. Sup- 
pose a Presbyterian were to say, " The Bishops 
" of our Church are the successors of the Aposdes, 
" and succeed to as much of their authority or 
/' masterships as was intended to be perpetual in 
" the Church :" would any intelligent person who 
heard him, imagine that he was speaking a lan- 
guage either favourable to diocesan Episcopacy, or 
hostile to his own principles ? Certainly not. And 
yet this language coincides, in every essential 
point, with that of Irenceus. — Dr. Boxvden seems 
not to understand, or perpetually to forget, that we 
consider our Pastors or Bishops as the true and 
proper successors of the Apostles, so far as their 
office was ordinary and intended to be transmitted ; 
and that we consider them as invested with the 
highest authority, or (if he prefer the word,) 
mastership in the Church. 

But that part of the testimony of Irenceus to which 
Dr. Bowden attaches the greatest importance, is, 
that he represents the succession in the Church of 
Ro7ne as flowing through single ministers whom he 
styles Bishops ; although we have reason to believe 
that there were many Presbyters connected with 

P 2 



174 LETTJtR V. 

the Church in that city. Now, if there were a 
number of Bishops, in our sense of the word, in 
Rome^ how, it is asked, coiild Irenccus trace the line 
of succession through single persons only ? In 
other words, why does he single out Linus^ Anacle* 
tus^ Clemens^ and Evaristus^ as successively Bishops 
of Rome^ when, according to our doctrine, there 
were, pretty certainly, a number of contemporary 
ministers in that Church, of the same rank with 
those whose names are mentioned ? I answer, this 
statement of Jrenceus is not to be relied on; and if 
it xpere^ it h nothing to the purpose. 

I say, the statement of this Father, respecting 
the succession in the Church of Rome^ is not to be 
relied upon. He says that Anacletus was before 
Clemens^ and next to Linus. Tertulian and seve- 
ral others assure us that Clemens was next to Peter ^ 
and, of course, before Anacletus. Epiphanius and 
Optatus say that Anacletus and Cletus were before 
Clemens. While Augustine ^ Damasus^ and others, 
assert that Anacletus^ Cletus^ and Linus^ were all an- 
tecedent to Clemens. Here is perfect confusion. 
It is evident that these v.Titers were guided by 
vague and contradictory traditions, and knew no- 
thing of the matter. The probability, from the 
very face of the story, is that the Bishops or Pas- 
tors of whom they speak, did not all sit in the pas- 
toral chair of i?c?7«^ singly, and in succession, but 
several of them together. Accordingly Damasus^ 
in his work De Gestis PontiJicu7n^ hath these words: 
^' St. Peter ordamed two Bishops, Linus and C/f- 



Testimony of the Fathers, 1 TS 

" tus^ who, in their own persons, should perform all 
" sacred offices to the Roman people." It is true 
these words are not to be found in the printed 
editions of that work ; but they are in all the ma* 
nitscript copies, and so they are cited by Marianus, 
Scotus^ as the learned Vossius assures us \ who adds, 
" That the succession of Bishops at Rome^ in a 
*^ single person, began under Evartstus. Before 
" his time two or three sat together^." The 
learned jftmius^ also, an illustrious Reformer of 
Holland^ nearly contemporary with Luther^ speak- 
ing of the contradictory testimony of the Fathers, 
respecting the succession of the first Bishops or 
Pastors of Rome^ delivers the following decisive 
opinion. " These, or some of these, were Pres- 
*' byters or Bishops of Rome^ at the same time, 
'' ruling the Church in common. But the follow- 
" ing writers, fancying to themselves such Bishops 
*' as had then obtained in the Church, fell into these 
" snares of tradition, because they supposed, accor* 
" ding to the custom of their own times, that there 
" could be but one Bishop in one Church at the 
" same timef." 

But, granting that there is no mistake in the tcs* 
timony of Irenwus; granting that it is all authentic 
and worthy of confidence j it proves nothing incon* 
sistent with the doctrine of Presbyterian parity. 
What though the pious Father represents a succes- 

* OwEii's History of Ordination, Chap. i. Prop. Vii. 
f Jtjkii Contrtfv. Lib. ii. Cap. 5. Not. 18, 



176 LETTER V. 

sion of single persons as styled Bishops in the 
Church of Rome? They might have been the 
senior Pastors of that cityvor they might have been 
the successive Moderators of the city Presbytery. 
Or a few names might have been selected out of 
a number of contemporary ministers, of the same 
ecclesiastical order, on account of their superiour 
age, talents, or weight of character. In short, a 
variety of suppositions may he made concerning 
them, all equally reconcileable with Presbyterian 
principles, and with the language of Irenceus; but 
none of them giving the least countenance to the 
prelatical doctrine of different orders of clergy. 

But the most extraordinary charge of Dr. B. is 
that I have misrepresented and perverted the tes- 
timony of Jerome. He insists that Jerome says 
nothing, which can be justly construed as intimat- 
ing that ministerial parity existed in the Apostolic 
Church ; but much of a directly opposite import. 
With a man who can persist in assertions of this 
kind, in the face of evidence so clear and indubita- 
ble, it is vain to reason. Let me request you, bre- 
thren, again to review the long and faithful extracts 
from the writings of this Father, which are con- 
tained in the Jifth of my former Letters, and then 
decide whcither it is possible for sophistry itself to 
set aside testimony so full and positive. What 
docs Jerome say ? Instead of speaking " obscure- 
ly," or *' doubtfully," as Dr. B. alleges, his decla- 
rations on this point are absolutely among the most 
express and unequivocal passages to be found on 



Ttstimony vf the Fathers. 1)7 

any subject, in all antiquity ! He says, in so many 
words, that in the beginning, ^' Not only in his 
" opinion, but also in that of Scripture^ Bishop 
" and Presbyter were the same^ the one being the 
" name of age^ the other of office^'^ — And again, 
" Among the ancients^ Presbyters and Bishops 
'^ were the sameJ'^ — i%id again, " A Presbyter is 
'^ the same as a Bishop ; and before there were, by 
" the devil's influence, parties in religion, the 
" Churches were governed by the common coun- 
" cil of Presbyters^" To prove this, he formally 
quotes passages from the Acts of the Apostles^ 
from the Epistle to the Philipp'ians^ from the Epis- 
tles to Timothy and Titus^ from the first Epistle of 
Peter^ and from the second and third Epistles of 
John : — The very passages which are generally 
quoted by Presbyterians in favour of their doc- 
trine. Jerome further declares that afterwards the 
practice was introduced of placing one of the Pres- 
byters above the rest, as a remedy against schism. 
He declares, expressly, that this practice was 
^' brought in (paulathn) by little and little*^ He 
asserts, with equal explicitness, that " Bishops are 
" above Presbyters, more by the custom of the 
*' Churchy than by the appointynent of Christ.*^ 
And finally, he asserts that this departure from the 
primitive model^ owed its origin to the decay of re- 
ligion, and especially to the ambition of Ministers. 
It commenced " When every one began to think 
'* that those whom he baptized were rather his 
" than Christ\.^'* I appeal to your candour, my 



178 LETTER V, 

brethren, whether any thing can be plainer or more 
decisive than this language ? I appeal to your can- 
dour, whether the man who is capable of saying 
that these are ^' obscure" and " doubtful" passa- 
ges, can be safely trusted either as a discerning or 
an impartial judge. 

Dr. BGxvden^ indeed, alleges, that these '' ob- 
scure" passages from Jerome are more than coun- 
terbalanced by others^ in which he avowedly main- 
tains the Apostolical origin of Prelacy. But where 
are such passages to be found in that Father ? Dr. 
B. has produced none of them ; and until he does 
produce them, I must be excused for doubting 
their existence. He has brought forward, it is 
true, seven quotations, each of which he tells us is 
clear and pointed. But no person, it is presumed, 
excepting Dr. B. himself, can see the *^ clearness," 
or the " point" of any one of the number, jfe^ 
rome^ it seems, asserts, that " Without the Bi- 
*' shop's command, neither Presbyter nor Deacon 
^^ has a right to baptize." He observes, *' 1 hat 
" the Scriptures give the name of Princes to those 
" w^ho should be Bishops of the Church." He 
styles Polycarp^ prince of Asia^ ; and asserts that 

* For the passage in which Jerome represents Poly carp _ 
as prince of alt Asia, and Bishop of Smyrnay Dr. Boxmien re- 
fers to the work Be Scj-iptor. Eccles. Has the Doctor 
yet to learn that this work is acknowledged by the ablest 
Episcopal writers to be interpolated and suspicious ; and 
particularly, that they have acknowledged as among the in- 
terpolations, several passages in wliich persons are mention- 
ed as Bishops of particular ChurcheB in the Apostolic age ? 



Testiniony of the Fathers. 179 

he was " made Bishop of Snujrna by Su John 
" himself." Speaking of certain differences be- 
tween the Catholic Churches, and those of the 
Montariists^ he says, " With us^ the Bishops 
" hold the place of the Apostles; with them the 
" Bishop holds the third place." Again, he says, 
" it is the custom of the Church, for Bisrwps to go 
'' and invoke the Holy Spirit by imposition of 
" hands, on such as were baptized by Presbyters 
'' and Deacons^ in villages and places remote from 
" the mother Church. Do you ask, where this is 
'' written ? In the Acts of the Apostles." In ano- 
ther place he says, " The Apostles were thy Fa- 
''• thers, because they begat thee ; but now that 
'* they have left the world, thou hast in their stead, 
*^ their sons, the Bishops^." And finally, in his 
'^ Epistle to Evagrius^ he remarks, " That we 
"-' may know that the Apostolic traditions w^ere 
'•'- taken from the Old Testament, that which Aaron 
"• and his soiis^ and the Levites^ were in the tem- 
" pie, let the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, 

Besides, supposing the work to be genuine, why is no refer- 
ence made to the particular part in which the passages re- 
ferred to may be found? I really expected more '* scholar 
like" conduct from this gentleman ; especially after hia re- 
peated and solemn promises to that effect. 

* This quotation also Dr. Bowden takes from the adulterates! 
work De Script. Eccles. ; and again quotes it without any re- 
ference to a particular part or page. The " learned" profes- 
sor is perpetually forgetting his promise, to act a more ** scho- 
lar like" part. 



180 LETTER V. 

" claim to themselves in the Church." — These are 
all the passages which Dr. Boxvden cites with so 
much exultation, and which he considers as point* 
edly asserting the Apostolical institution of Prela- 
cy. But I will venture to pronounce, that there is 
not one of these passages, which can be considered 
by any impartial reader, as furnishing the least so- 
lid ground for such a conclusion ; and only one of 
the whole number which bears even the semblance 
of an argument to this effect. 

When yerome says that Bishops come in the 
place of the Apostles, and hold the first place 
among the officers of the Church ; when he re- 
marks, that the Apostles having left the world, we 
have the Bishops in their place ; and when he as- 
serts that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna; he 
speaks a language in which every Presbyterian is 
ready to join him* Is it possible that Dr. Bowden 
is so utterly unacquainted with our principles, as 
not to know, that we consider our Bishops or Pa^^ 
tors^ as the true and proper successors of the Apos- 
tles ; and as holding the highest official station in 
the Church? Did he ever meet with a Presbyte- 
rian who doubted that Polycarp had a pastoral 
charge, or, in other words, was a Bishop in Smyr- 
na ? Again, when Jerome says, " Without the Bi- 
" shop^s. command, neither Presbyter nor Deacon 
" has a right to baptize," he evidently meant to 
assert that this was the case in the fourth century, 
when he lived. But did any Presbyterian ever de- 
ny that in the days of Jerome^ Prelacy was estab- 



Testimony of the Fathers. 181 

liahed ? The criticism which Dr. B. makes on the 
word right (jus) which occurs in this passage, I 
pass over as unworthy of his good sense, and 
as undeserving of reply. Further, when Jerome 
declares, that the Scriptures give the name of 
Princes to Bishops, and when he asserts that Poly^ 
carp was Prince of all Asia^ he says what our Epis- 
copal brethren themselves acknowledge to be false- 
hoods. They know that no such official title is, any 
where in Scripture, given to Bishops ; and they 
acknowledge also that Polijcarp was Bishop of 
Smyrna only, and that Metropolitans and Patriarchs 
did not arise until a considerable time after his day. 
When y^r(?772^ says, '' It is the custom of the church 
" for Bishops to lay their hands on such as have 
*^ been baptized by Presbyters and Deacons^ and to 
" in'.oke the Holy Spirit," he asserts nothing more 
than that it was the custom of the Church in his 
day. Who doubts this? Do we not all know 
that, before the time of Jerome^ the rite which is 
called Confirwation had crept into the Church, and 
began to claim apostolic institution? And even 
when yerom.e refers to the Acts of the Apostles as 
his authority for this custom, it is nothing to the pur- 
pose as to the present controversy ; for he does not 
say, that the persons who laid hands on baptized 
persons in the Apostles' days, were the sa^ne kind 
of Bishops with those who arrogated to themselves 
that power in his days. Nay, he says, in another 
place, directly the contrary. And, finally, when jfe- 



152 LETTER V. 

rome remarks, '' what Aaron and his scns^ and the 
" Levites were in the temple, let the Bishops^ Pres" 
'^ byters^ and Deacons claim to themselves in the 
" Church ;" and when he speaks of this parallel as 
an " apostolical traditzon^^ we can only infer 
from his language the well-known fact, that in his 
day, high-churchmen were fond of comparing the 
Christian ministry with the Jewish Priesthood ; of 
endeavouring to show that the former succeeded 
to the grades, titles, and privileges of the latter 5 
and of pleading apostolical tradition for this doc- 
trine. It is known, independent of any testimony 
from Jerome^ that this was the fashionable doctrine 
and language of his time ; and it was natural for him 
to adopt th^ language, when he was not particular- 
ly called to speak of the system actually establish- 
ed by the apostles. But when Jerome undertakes 
professedly and formally to tell us how this matter 
actually stood in the apostolic age, he speaks in the 
following explicit and unequivocal language. Com^ 
ment. in Tit. 1.9. "A Presbyter is the same as a 
" Bishop; and before there were, by the instigation 
" of the devil, parties in religion, and it was said 
'^ among the people, lam ofPaul^ lofApollos^ and 
^^ I of Cephas^ the churches were governed by the 
*^ common council of Presbyters. BuX afterwards 
'^ when every one thought that those whom he bap- 
'^ tized were rather his than Chris fs^ it was deter- 
*' mined through the whole world, that one of the 
^' Presbyters should be set above the rest, to whom 



i\ 



Testimony of the Fathers.. 1 83 

^* all care of the Church should belong, that the 
^' seeds of scliism might be taken away. If any 
'^ suppose that it is merely mij opinion, and not that 
'' of the Scriptures, that Bishop and Presbyter are 
^' the same, and that one is the name of a^e^ the 
" other of oj^ice^ let him read the words of the 
^' Aposde to the Philippians, saying, Paul and Ti- 
*^ 7'nQthi/y the servants of Jesus Christy to all the saints 
*' in Christ Jesus that are in Philippic with the Bish- 
ops a7id Deacons. Philippi is a city of Macedonia^ 
'' and certainly, in one city, there could not be 
" more than one Bishop, as they are 7i07V styled. 
*' But at that time they called the same men Bishops 
^^ whom they called Presbyters; therefore, he 
** speaks indifferently of Bishops as of Presbyters. 
*^' This may seem, even yet, doubtful to some, till 
" it be proved by another testimony. It is written 
" in the Acts of the Apostles, that when the Apos- 
'^ tie came to Miletus he sent to Ephesus^ and called 
^* the Presbyters of that Churchy to whom, among 
*' other things, he said. Take heed to yourselves^ 
^' and to all thef.ock over xvhora the Holy Ghost hath 
*^ made you Bishops^ to feed the Church of God xvhich 
** he hath purchased xvith his ozvn blood. Here ob- 
'' serve diligently, that calling together the Presby- 
'* ters of one city, Ephesus^ he afterwards styles 
** the same persons Bishops. 

*^ These things I have written to show, tl<at 
^^ among the ancients. Presbyters and Bishops 
*^ were the same. But, by little and little^ that 
*' all the jseeds of dissenticn might be plucked up, 



184 LETTER V. 

" the whole care was devolved on one. As, there- 
" fore, the Presbyters know, that by the custom of 
" the Church they are subject to him who is their 
'^ President^ so let Bishops know, that they are 
'' above Presbyters more by the custom of the 
*^ Churchy than by any real appointment of Christ?^ 

In his episde to Evagrius^ he speaks in the same 
pointed language, asserting, and proving by the 
same quotations from Scripture, that in the begin- 
ning and during the Apostle^s days, a Bishop and a 
Presbyter were the same thing-. After having done 
this, he proceeds thus: — " As to the fact, that af 
*' terzvards^ one was elected to preside over the rest, 
" this was done as a remedy against schism ; lest 
*' every one drawing his proselytes to himself, 
" should rend the Church of Christ. For at Alex^ 
" andria^from Mark the Evangelist, to the Bishops 
" Heraclas and Dionysius^ the Presbyters always 
*^ chose one of their number, placed him in a su- 
" perior station, and gave him the title oi Bishop. 
*' In the same manner as if any army should make 
^^ an Emperor, or the Deacons should choose from 
" among themselves, one whom they knew to be 
" particularly active, and should call him Arclu 
" deacon^"* 

Dr Boxvden^ and his friends, do not hesitate to 
acknowledge, that Jerome represents some altera^ 
?ic/72 of the original constitution of the Church as 
having early taken place ; but they insist that, ac- 
cording to him, this alteration took place during the 
time, and under the authority of the Apostles. Is 



TesUmcnif of the Fathers. ISj 

Dr. B. then prepared to adopt the opinion, that the 
inspired Apostles at first adopted a form of govern- 
ment, which in a little while, they found ill-judged, 
and insufficient to answer the purpose; and that 
they then altered it for a better? Yet if there is 
any meaning in part of his reasoning, this is the 
amount of it ! But besides the blasphemy of the 
suggestion, Jerome could not have intended to say 
that this alteration took place during the times of 
the Apostles, because he quotes the Apostolical 
epistles to prove that it had not taken place at their 
date ; and particularly in his epistle to Evagrius^ he 
quotes the second and third episdes of jfohn to 
show that Presbyterian parity existed when they 
v/ere written, which was about thirty years^ after 
the schism at Corinth^ which Dr, Boxvden asserts 
is the period assigned by Jerome for the rise of 
Prelacy. Jerome further tells us, that the practice 
of setting one of the Presbyters above the rest, was 
brought in by degrees; which could never have 
been the case had it been founded on a distinct 
and positive order of the Apostles. And, as if 
this were not sufficiently explicit, he adds, to take 
away all possibility of mistake, " Let the Presby- 
*' ters know that they are subject to him who is 
'^ set over them by the custom of the Church ; and 
" let the Bishops know, that they are greater than 
" Presbyters, rather by the custom of the Churchy 
" than by any real appointment of Christ.^^ 

If I were further to take up your time, breth- 
ren, in exposing the various attempts of Dr, Boxvden 

Q 2 



186 LETTER V. 

to set aside this plain and unequivocal testimony of 
Jerome^ I should trespass on your patience, and insult 
your understandings. I have only to say., that 
some of the most learned and able advocates of 
Prelacy, as well as others, have understood Je*- 
rome as we understand him, and have confessed 
that he decisively maintains the Apostolic origin of 
Presbyterian parity. To establish this fact, the 
most pointed quotations might be adduced, almost 
without number. The few following will be suffi- 
cient. 

The celebrated Episcopal Divine, Dr. Saravia^ 
explicitly grants that Jerome was against the divine 
right of Episcopacy. '^ Jerome's opinion," says he, 
^' was private, and coincided with that of Aerius^.*^ 

The learned prelatist, Alphonso de Castro under- 
stood Jerome in the same manner. He sharply 
reproves a certain writer who had endeavoured to 
set aside the testimony commonly derived from 
that Father in favor of Presbytery, and insists that 
the testimony, as usually adduced, is correct. 
" But Thomas Waldensis^'' says he, ^' truly is de- 
" ceived ; for Jerome does endeavour to pr(yi>e 
" that, according to divine institution^ there was 
" no difference between Presbyter and Bishop?'^ 
He afterwards adds, " Neither ought any one to 
" wonder that Jerome^ though otherwise a most 
^^ learned and excellent man, was mistakenf .'^ 

* Be GradUus Minist. £van^eL Cap. 23. 
t Contra Heres, p. 103, 104. 



Testimony of the Fathers. 187 

Bishop Jewel understood Jerome as we do, and 
expressly quotes the passage which is commonly 
quoted by presbyterians, to show that this Father 
asserts the original equality and identity oi Bishops 
and Presbyters^, 

Bishop Morton interprets Jerome in the same 
manner. He expressly acknowledges that Jerome 
represents the difference between Bishop and Pres- 
byter as brought into the church not by divine^ but 
human authority. He further asserts, that there 
was no substantial difference, on the subject of 
Episcopacy, between Jerome and Aerius. And 
further, that not only all the Protestants^ but also 
all the primitive Doctors v/erc of the same mind 
with Jerome^. 

The learned Episcopalian, Professor Whitaker^ 
concured in this inter pre tation, " If Aerius^"* says 
he, '^ was a heretic in this point, he had Jerome to 
*^ be his neighbour in that heresy ; and not only 
'* him, but other Fathers, both Greek and Latin^ 
*•' as is confessed by Medina. Aerius thought that 
*^ Presbyter did not differ from Bishop by any di- 
'' vine law and authority ; and the same thing was 
*^ contended for by Jerome^ and he defended it bv 
" those very Scripture testimonies that Aerius did J." 

♦ JUfinci of his Apology for the Church ofEn^land^ p. S48. 
t Cathol. Jpelog. Lib. i. p. US— 120. 
it Contr^v. iv. ^est, i. Cap. iii. Sect. 50. 



188 LETTER V. 

Few men have been more distinguished for 
their learned and zealous labours in favour of Epis- 
copacy than Dr. William Nichols* Yet this eminent 
Episcopalian, speaking of Jerome^ thus expresses 
himself. " At last came St. Jerome^ though not 
" till above three centuries after the Apostles^ 
" times, who valuing himself upon his learning, 
" which, indeed, was very great ; and being pro- 
" voiced by the insolence of some deacons, who 
" set themselves above Presbyters ; to the end he 
" might maintain the dignity of his order against 
" such arrogant persons, he advanced a notion ne- 
*' ver heard of before, viz. that Presbyters were 
" not a different order from Bishops ; and that a 
*' Bishop was only a more eminent Presbyter, cho- 
" sen out of the rest, and set over them, for pre- 
*' venting of schism*." 

Luther^ whom some of our Episcopal brethren 
ignorantly claim as their own, in the articles ofSmaU 
caldy which he framed, expressly declares, that 
** Jerome teaches that the distinction of degrees 
** between a Bishop and a Presbyter, or Pastor, 
*' was appointed only by human authority^ This 
declaration was also formally subscribed by Melanc* 
thon. In the Confession ofWirtemberg^ Jerome is 
interpreted in the same manticr ; and in the second 
Helvetic Confession^ he is particularly quoted in 
support of the doctrine that in the primitive Church 
Bishop and Presbyter were the same. And, in a 

* Defence ejtht Dut. and Di^cip. cf the Church of England 

p. 241. 



Testhnomj of the Fathers. 189 

subsequent letter, you vviil find a number of other 
illustrious Divines, of different denominations, all 
concurring in the interpretation which wc give of 
the learned Father. 

I shall close my remarks on the testimony of 
Jerome^ with the judgment of Bishop Croft^ ex- 
pressed in the follov/ing words — " And now I de- 
*' sire my reader, if he understands Latin^ to view 
" the episde of St. Jerome to Evagrms ; and 
" doubtless he will wonder to see men have the 
" confidence to quote any thing out of it for the 
*' distinction between Episcopacy and Presbyterij ; 
" for the whole epistle is to show the identity of 
'' therrJ^:' 

I will not attempt to follow Dr. Botoden through 
all his tedious details of testimony from the Fathers 
of the third^ fourth^ and following centuries, and 
his still more tedious comments on that testimony. 
What if Tertullian^ Cyprian^ Ortgen^ Hilary^ Epi* 
phanius^ Augustine^ and a dozen more, who lived 
within the same period, could be brought to attest 
in the most unequivocal terms that prelacy existed 
in their time ? Does any Presbyterian deny that 
clerical imparity had begun to appear in the third^ 
and was established in the fourth century ? But 
Dr. Borvden alleges that several of these writers 
expressly assert the Apostolical institution of Prela- 
cy. Now if it were even true that they do make 
this assertion, it would weigh nothing with me, 

* Nahd Truth, p. 45. 



4.9*0 LETTER V. 

tior With any other reasonable man. In this opin- 
ion every one must concur who seriously \veighs' 
the following facts. 

Within fifty years after the Apostolic age, the 
wine in the Lord's Sapper was constantly mixed 
with water. This mixture, considered, at first, as 
a measure of human prudence, soon began to be 
urged, not onl}- as a matter of importance, but as a 
divine institution. Irenosus declares it to have been 
both taught and practised by our Saviour himself. 
Lib. iv. Cap. 57. — Cyprian also asserts that tlie 
same thing v/as enjoined by tradition from the 
Lord, and made a part of the original institution. 
Epist. 63. ad CccciL But no Protestant now be- 
lieves either the one or the other. Administering 
the Lord'^s Supper to infants arose early in the 
Church. It is certain that this corruption existed 
in the second century. Cyprian^ in the third centu* 
ry, speaks of it, not as a new thing, but as an ordi- 
nary practice. De Lapsis* Sect. 13. Augustine 
calls it an Apostolical tradition^ represents it as a 
general custom, and expressly founds the proprie- 
ty and necessity of it on John vi. 5^. Now that 
this practice nev^er had the least foundation either 
in Scripture or Apostolic example, our opponents, 
as w^ell as ourselves, are fully agreed. Again ; 
Ir enceus \iOs,ii\\'t\y asserts that Christ remained on 
earth until he had reached old age; that he was at 
Ic^st Jifty years old when he was crucified ; and 
that '' this w^as ascertained by the unanimous tra- 
** dition, and positive testimony of all the old men 



Testimony of the Fathers* l&l 

'^ who had lived with St. jfoh??^ and the other 
^" Apostles, from whom they ail received this ac- 
^^ count, and constantly bore witness to the truth 
" of it.'' Lib. II. Cap. 39. But no one can open 
the Bible, w ithout perceiving that this pretended 
fact, in behalf of which the authority of inspired 
men is quoted, is totally false. To mention only 
one case more ; we learn from Eusebiiis^ that, in 
the days of Irennis^ there arose a very fierce dis- 
pute respecting the proper time for the celebration 
of Easter. The Churches of Asia took one side ; 
and the Western Churches, with Victor^ Bishop of 
Rome^ at their head, took the other. The former 
asserted, that they were supported by the authority 
of the Apostles John and Phillip, The latter, 
with equal confidence, plead the authority of Peter 
and Paul in justification of their practice. Iren^ms 
addresed a lester to Victor ox\ the subject, in which 
there i» found the following passage. " This di- 
** versity did not begin in our time ; but long ago 
" among our forefathers ; who, as it seems, through 
^' negligence in the management of their charge, 
^^ handed down to their posterity a custom w^hich 
" through simplicity and ignorance had crept into 
" the Church*." And Socrates t; xht Ecclesiastical 
Historian, who wrote about a century after Euse* 
hius^ speaks of such observances generally in the 
following language. *' Neither the ancients, nor 
'^ the modems, who have studiously followed the 

♦ Euscb. Hist, Eccles. Lib. v. Cap. 24 



291 LETTER V. 

" yews^ had, in my opinion, any just or rational 
" cause for contending so much about this festival 
** (Easter. J For they considered not with them- 
" selves, that when the Jewish reHgion was chan- 
" ged into Christianity^ those accurate observances 
" of the Mosaic law, and the types, wholly ceased. 
'' And this carries along with it its own demon- 
** stration. For no one of Christ's laws has per- 
" mitted Christians to observe the rites of the 
^' Jewsp On the contrary, the AposUe has ex- 
" pressly forbid this, and does not only reject cir- 
** cumcision. but also advises against contending 
** about festival days. Moreover, it is his admo- 
*' nitions, that days, and months, and years, should 
*' in no wise be observed. Besides, in his epistle 
*' to the Colossians^ he loudly affirms that such ob- 
" servances are a shadow. Men love festival-days 
" because thereon they have a cessation from 
" their labour. Neither our Saviour nor his 
" Apostles have enjoined upon us by any lavv to 
*' observe such days*." Here, then, is a large 
body of Churches and Bishops asserting that they 
have Apostolical authority for a certain practice. 
On the other hand there is a large body of equally 
respectable Chur/^iCS and Bishops, who assert, with 
no less confidence, that they have Apostolical ^M" 
thority for a different practice. And, to crown all, 
a third class, as much entitled to respect as either, 
pronounce, that both the former speak falsehood ; 

* Socrat, Ecclcs. Hist. Lib. r. Cap. 52. 



Testimony of the Fathers. 193 

and that the plea of Apostolical authority advanced 
bjr each, is equally and totally without foundation ! 
Who, after such notorious instances of either cre- 
dulity or dishonesty, would give the least credit to 
a claim of Apostolical institution, resting on no 
other ground than the assertion of the Fathers? 
Could we find in them, therefore, the most direet 
and decisive claim of this kind, in behalf of dioce- 
san Episcopacy, it would be unworthy of confidence. 
But it is not true that any one of the Fathers, 
within th^Jirstfour centuries^ does assert the Aposto- 
lical institution of Prelacy. Dr. Boxvden produces 
Cyprian assaying, that " Jesus Christ and he alone 
" has the power of setting Bishops over the Church 
*' to govern it ;" that " Christ constitutes as well 
" as protects Bishops ;" and that " it is by divine 
" appointment a Bishop is set over the Church." 
He produces Origen^ as saying, " Shall I not be 
" subject to the Bishop who is of God ordained to 
'^ be my father ? Shall not I be subject to the 
" Presbyter, who is, by divine vouchsafement^ set 
" over me ?" He quotes Hilary as declaring, *' The 
** Bishop is the chief; though every Bishop is a 
" Presbyter, yet every Presbyter is not a Bishop.'^ 
And also as asserting, that James^ and Timothy^ 
and Titles^ and the Angels of the Asiatic Churches 
v/ere Bishops. He cites Athanasius as remonstra- 
ting with one who declined a Bishopric, in the fol- 
lowing terms — " If you think there is no reward 
" allotted to the office of a Bishop, you despise the 
" Saviour xvho instituted that office.'^ He reprc- 
R 



194 LETTER y. 

sents Chrysostom^ as commenting on 1 Tim* iv. 4. 
in these words — " Paul does not speak of Presby* 
*' ters^ but of Bishops^ for Presbyters did not or- 
*' dain Timothy a Bishop." And finally he pro- 
duces the Fathers of the Council of Antioch^ in the 
year 265, as declaring, that " the office of a Bishop 
" IS sacred 2iW(}i exemplary, both to the clergy and 
" to the people," Now, is it possible that Dr. 
Bowden^ after devoting the best powers of his mind, 
for thirty years, to this controversy, has yet to learn, 
that all these quotations, and ten thousand more 
like them, are nothing to his purpose ? It is truly 
amazing! Have not I, who am a Presbyterian, 
repeatedly said, in the foregoing sheets, that " Bi^ 
shops were, by divine appointment, set over the 
Church ?" Do not Presbyterians perpetually speak 
of the office of Bishop in their Church as a *^ sa- 
cred office ?" And would any Presbyterian on earth 
scruple to say, that Bishops were^ and are ordain- 
ed of God to be set over the Church ; and also 
that every member of their flockj and even assis- 
tant preachers^ within their parish, if not invested 
with a share in the pastoral charge^ are bound to 
be " subject to them ?'' But no one, surely, could 
construe these expressions, on our part, as implying 
that we believed in the divine institution of such 
Bishops as our Episcopal brethren contend for. The 
truth is, these quotations, so pompously made, only 
prove two points ; First^ that the Fathers in question 
believed that there were Bishops in the Apostolic 
Church; which no man, in his senses, ever doubt- 



Testimony of the Fathers. 195 

ed : and Secondly^ that at the time zvhen they wrote^ 
Bishops were considered as having some kind of 
superiority over common Presbyters ; which is as 
little doubted as the former. In short, Dr. Bowden 
is deceived by the bare occurrence of the word 
Bishop. Whenever he finds this word in the wri- 
tings of the Fathers, his imagination is instantly 
filled with Prelates^ and with all the peculiarities of 
the Episcopal system. But before the smallest 
touch of inquiry this hallucination vanishes. Though 
Bishops in the third and fourth centuries, had ap- 
propriated to themselves powers, which before had 
been enjoyed by others in common with them ; yet 
their office itself was of divine appointment. Dr. 
Bowden^ indeed, says, and endeavours to persuade 
his readers, that the writers whom he quotes, de- 
clare the Bishops which existed in the days of the 
Apostles to have been just such Bishops^ as existed 
several centuries afterwards, in their own times — 
Bishops in the prelatical sense of the word. But 
the Doctor, with all his confidence, must pardon 
me for saying, this is not true. He has produced 
no passage which makes any such declaration, or 
%vhich legitimately implies it ; nor is he able to 
produce such a passage, from all the stores of anti- 
quity, within the specified limits. 

Besides the direct quotations from the Fathers, 
which prove that the primitive Bishop was the 
Pastor of a single congregation, I mentioned, in my 
former Letters, some facts^ incidentally stated by 
early writers, which serve remarkably to confirm 



196 LETTER V. 

the same truth. Dr. Bowden treats these alleged 
facts with great contempt, arid endeavours to show 
that they are all either unfounded, or nothing to 
the purpose. I do not think it necessary to go 
over this part of the ground again. Of the Jive 
facts mentioned by me and assailed by Dr. B. 
there are only txvo of which it appears proper to 
take any further notice. 

The Jirst of these is, the great number of Bi- 
shops which ecclesiastical historians inform us were 
found, in early periods of the Church, within small 
districts of country. Suppose a man in Europe 
were to be told, that there are, at this time, within 
the State of New-York^ two hundred and fifty 
Bishops. What would be his conclusion? Why, 
certainly, that these could not be such Bishops as 
are found in any church in which diocesan Episco- 
pacy is established. And if he were immediately 
afterwards informed that, within the whole State, 
there are only about txvo hundred and fifty organ- 
ized congregations, he would confidently infer that 
there must be a Bishop in every congregation^ and, 
therefore, that the title Bishop was considered as 
synonymous with that of Pastor oi^ single Church. 
This is precisely my argument in the present case. 
When we find in Provincial synods, in early times, 
.severed hundred Bishops convened ; when we find, 
upon enquiry, that these Bishops and their Bishop, 
rics were all embraced in districts of country not 
much, if at all more extensive than the State of 
Neriv^Tork; and when we have reason further to 



Testimony of the Fathers^ 197 

conclude that many parts, even of these districts, 
were not subjected to the empire of Christianity ; 
what must be our conclusion ? Unquestionably, 
that which has been just mentioned. These Bi- 
shops could have been no other than parish Rec^ 
tors^ or Pastors ; and the fact goes far toward cor- 
roborating the doctrine in support of which it was 
produced, viz. that primitive Episcopacy was paro* 
chial^ and not diocesan. 

Dr. Boxvden does not deny that, in the council 
of Antioch^ in the third century, there were upwards 
of six hundred Bishops. He does not deny that 
there were present at a Provincial synod, in Africa^ 
in the time of Atigiistine^httWQtnJive and six hu7i* 
^r^J Bishops. Neither does he deny, that about 
the same time, according to Victor Uticensisj from 
that part of Africa in which the Vandalic persecu* 
tion raged, six hundred and sixty Bishops fled, be- 
sides the great number that were murdered and 
imprisoned, and many more who were tolerated. 
Now when it is recollected that this persecution 
extended only to a small portion of Africa^ and 
that it was carried on by one denomination of pro- 
fessing Christians against another, we are necessari- 
ly led to conclude that there must have been in 
that section of Africa alone, at least two thousand 
Bishops. Could th«se have been Prelates^ each 
with a number of congregations and Pastors under 
his care ? It is incredible. They could not have 
been more than the ordinary Pastors of single con- 
gregations. It is not likely that organized Churches 
R 2 



198 LETTER V. 

were more thickly strewed in Africa^ at that time, 
than at present in our own country ; nor can we, by 
any means, suppose that the persecution in question 
prevailed through a district larger than the United 
States: yet I am persuaded we have not in the 
United States many more than txvo thousand regu^ 
lar clergymen of all denominations. 

All that Dr. Boxvden has to offer in opposition 
to this reasoning, is, that the " learned Bingham^ 
in his Antiquities of the Churchy has given a geo- 
graphical description of the ancient Bishoprics,. as 
first made toward the close of the ninth century ;" 
and that, according to his representation, there is 
no difficulty in accounting for the number of Bish- 
ops found in the early councils. — To this testimony 
of Bingham I might offer many objections. The 
work which contains it, though apparently much 
respected by Dr. Boxvden^ is a work of great par-* 
tiality, and little credit. The sources from which 
the author derived his information, are by no means 
such as ought to inspire the confidence of any rea- 
sonable man. And, how any mortal can with con- 
fidence determine, from arrangements made in the 
ninth century, what were those of the third and 
fourth^ Dr. Bozvden may be able to explain ; I am 
not. But after all, what is the amount of Bing-- 
hamh testimony ? It is that, even in the ninth cen- 
tur)^, many of the Bishops' dioceses were of very 
small extent, litde, if any, larger than many of our 
modern parishes. And is not this precisely the 
position for which I contend, and on which this 



Testimony of the Fathers. 199 

whole argument is founded ? Besides, if Bishop- 
rics were thus small in the ninth century, have we 
not abundant proof that they were smaller still, in 
the third and fourth centuries, when it is certain 
that Bishops were more numerous than they were 
several hundred years afterwards ? But this is not 
the only instance in which Dr. Bowden unwittingly 
betrays his own cause, and supports the Presbyte- 
rian doctrine. 

But, with respect to the African Bishoprics, Dr. 
Boxvden^ following his suspicious guide, Bingham^ 
takes a ground somewhat different. He asserts, 
that " in the whole extent of that countrj^, from the 
^^ borders of Egypt to the western part of the pe- 
" ninsula, comprehending^ a length of 2360 miles,^ 
•' and a breadth in some places of 200, in others 
*' of 500 miles, there were but 466 dioceses; as 
" appears, he adds, from the Collation of Carthage^ 
" the Abstract of St. Austin^ and the Notitia of the 
" Africati Churchy made about fifty years after Aiis^ 
*' tins death, and published by Sirmondus.''* On 
this statement I shall make no remark ; but shall 
leave it, to be treated as it deserves, by those who 
recollect the account given by Victor Uticensis of 
the number of Bishops banished, murdered, &c« 
during the Vandalic persecution ; and also the num- 
bers of Bishops actually convened in provincial 
synods, about the same time. 

As another signal instance of the number of Bi- 
shops found in early times, I mentioned that Patrick^ 
the Apostle of Ireland^ who went thither about the 



200 LETTER V. 

year 432, founded in that island 365 Churches, and 
ordained over them the same nwnber of Bishops ; 
and also ordained for these Churches 3000 Elders. 
These facts I represented as resting on the au- 
thority of archbishop Usher ^ and other eccesiastical 
historians. Dr. Bowden utterly denies that Usher 
says this, or " any thing like it.'^ Has the Doctor 
ever read Usher ^ work on the Antiquities of the 
British Churches ? In that work, in pages 491 and 
and 492*, if he does not find the learned author 
quoting with apparent approbation, several respect- 
able antecedent historians, all of whom expressly 
state the facts which I have mentioned concerning 
Patrick^ he must read with eyes very different from 
those of most other men. 

But Dr. Bowden endeavours to turn this whole 
account into ridicule. " We have," says he, " ac- 
" cording to this story, St. Patrick^ who lived in 
" the Jifth century, when all our adversaries ac- 
^' knowledge that diocesan Episcopacy was univer- 
" sal, and who was also made a Bishop of that kind 
** by Pope Celestinej converting the Irish, and 
*' planting among them Presbyterian parity. "^^ Did 
I any where assert that Patrick established Pres* 
byterian parity ? Was it not my object to prove, 
that the primitive extent of a Bishop's charge was a 
single Jlock ; and that this plan continued to be real- 
ized in some parts of the Christian world, even after 



• Britannkarum JEcclesiarum Antiquitates* Fol. HdU. Se- 
cund, 1687, 



Testimony of the Fathers^ 201 

Prelacy had been firmly and generally established ? 
He who cannot understand how the statement con- 
cerning Patrick may be admitted, consistently with 
the doctrine of my Letters, has reason to suspect 
that the fault liejs, not in the doctrine itself, nor in 
its advocate, but in some other quarter. 

As another fact, illustrative of the number of 
Bishops found in early times, I mentioned, " that 
" Dalmatius^ Bishop of Cyziciim^ who assisted 
" at the general council of Ephestis^ against the 
" Nestor ians^ told the Emperor that there were ^i.r 
" thousand Bishops in that council, who opposed 
" Nestor ius.^^ In this statement I acknowledge 
myself to have fallen into a mistake \ a mistake 
which I had discovered and regretted long before 
Dr. Boxvdeii's volumes made their appearance. 
The fact, as it ought to have stood, is this ; " Dal^ 
" tncttius told the Emperor, that one of the metro- 
" politans who attended the general council of 
" Ephesiis^ had six thousand Bishops under him, 
" who were all against Nestorius^'* This fact I 
found recorded in Baxter'^ s Treatise on Episcopacy^ 
Part. II. p. 38. And he quotes as his authority 
for it the learned Binnius^ in Concil. Ephes. i. Tom. 
II. Cap. 20. In hastily reading a sentence of un- 
usual structure, I was so unfortunate as to receive 
an erroneous impression from it, which, though a 
candid reader, in reviewing the sentence for him- 
self, would at once find reason to excuse, I am still 
glad of an opportunity to acknowledge and explain. 
But w^hile I confess my mistake, it is plain that the 



202 LETTER V. 

fact as it really stands is quite as much in my fa- 
vour, as my erroneous statement, if true, would 
have been : or rather the fact of one metropolitan 
having within his district six thousand Bishops, is 
even a stronger testimony in support of my princi- 
ple. The fidelity of the quotation will scarcely be 
doubted. For although I have never been able 
to procure the work of Binniiis which is here 
quoted; yet being confident that Richard Bax- 
ter had read more books than many of those who 
affect to despise him ever sazu^ I have no fear of 
leading you astray in trusting to his citations. 
As to Dr. B.'s objection to the truth of this ac- 
count, that A^ never before heard of Dahnatius ; 
and that he is not able to find his name either in 
Cave or Mosheim^ it is to be sure a real difficulty ! 
How it is to be surmounted, is a very serious ques- 
tion ! But I much fear that this objection, if ad- 
mitted in general, would blot out of existence the 
names and writings of some of the best men that 
have ever adorned the Christian Church. 

The next fact which I think it my duty further 
to notice, is, that in early times, it was customary 
for the ji?(?CiJ of which the Bishop was to have the 
charge, to meet together for the purpose of electing 
him ; and that he was always ordained in their pre* 
sence. This was mentioned as another considera- 
tion which evinces that primitive Episcopacy was 
parochial^ and not diocesan. Dr. Bozvden denies 
the fact. He declares that there are no traces of 
the popular election of Bishops during the first two 



Testhnony of the Fathers. 203 

hundred yesLYs after Christ ; and that so far as this 
practice ever prevailed, it arose in the third centu- 
ry, but was soon laid aside. In reply to these bold 
assertions, I shall only present the following quota- 
tion from Cyprian^ Doctor Bowderi^ favourite au- 
thority. EpisU 67. " Wherefore a people who 
*' would obey the rules of the gospel should sepa- 
^' rate themselves from a sinful Bishop, and should 
" not partake with a profane priest in his sacrifi- 
** ces; especially since the chief power of choos- 
" ing worthy priests, and of rejecting unworthy 
'' ones, is lodged with them : which rule we see 
'^ proceeded oj'iginal/y from God'^s authority^ that 
^' a Bishop should be chosen in the presence of 
" the people, in the most public manner, and be 
'^ approved as worthy by the common suffrage of 
" the whole body. God directs his priest to be 
*' made so before all the congregation ; and there- 
" by shows us, that he would not have the ordina- 
" tions of his bishops performed, but in the pre- 
'^ sence, and with the privity of the people. This 
" rule, thus appointed by God^ we find afterwards 
'' observed in the Acts of the Apostles, when Pe- 
" ter spoke to the people, upon the point of sub- 
'' stituting some one to be an Apostle, in the room 
" of Judas. Nor do we find the Apostles obser- 
" ving this rule in the case of Bishops and Priests 
'' only, but even in the ordination of Deacons; 
" concerning which it is recorded in Acts^ vi. 2. 
'^ Then the twelve called the multitude of the disci^ 
^' pies unto them J and saidj Look ye out seven men of 



204- LETTER V. 

" holiest report^ full of the Holy Ghost and of rvis'> 
, *^ dom ; and the saying pleased the whole multitude ; 
^' and they chose Stephen &Pc. whom they set before 
" the Apostles^ ^c. Wherefore the rule which we 
'^ have handed down to us from God himself and 
^^ from the practice of his Apostles^ should be ob- 
" served with all exactness, as it is, indeed, already 
*^ amongst us, and generally amongst the provinces 
" here ; viz. that in celebrating our ordinations, 
*' the neighbouring Bishops of the province, where 
^' a Bishop is to be ordained for any people^, 
" should meet upon the place, and choose a Bishop 
^^ in the presence of the people. This rule we find 
*' you observed in the ordination of our Colleague, 
" Sabinus^ who was unanimously chosen by the 
'^ votes of all the people^ and the approbation of the 
*' Bishops who were there assemlDled." 

Here Cyprian^ who flourished about the middle 
of the third century, declares that the election of 
Bishops by the votes of all the people^ was a regula- 
tion established by God himself and sanctioned by 
the practice of the A^postles. And, lest the nature 
of this election should be mistaken, he asserts that 
the chief power of choice lies with the people, by 
divine right. Nay, to render the point still more 

* How remarkably does Cyprian speak in tlie Presbyterian 
style ! To ordain a Bishop for^ or o'uer, a people, ov flock, is 
scarcely intelligible on Episcopal principles. The Episcopal 
Bishop of NeiV'Tork, as such, is equally related to all the..con- 
gregations belonging to that communion in the State. In our 
Church, a Bishop is ordained over aparticular/<?ci or people. 



Testimoiiy of the Fathers. 205 

unequivocal, he represents the election in question 
as of the same nature with that of the Deacons^ in 
Act^ vi. 2, 3, &c. in which it is expresly asserted, 
that the whole multitude^ or the body of the people^ 
made the choice^. If this is not testimony that 
the method of popular election was practised in the 
days of Cyprian ; and that that Father considered 
it as of divine appointment, and as having been re- 
ceived in the Church from the days of the Aposdes, 
then I know not how to understand or interpret his 
language. Dr. Bozuden gives only a part of the 
above extract from Cyprian; and endeavours to 
prove from it that an actual election by the people 
is not at all intended. I trust, however, that of 
this gloss, on further consideration, he will be 
ashamed* 

Having thus, with all possible brevity, replied to 
such of Dr. Bozvden^s strictures as appeared worthy 
of notice, I shall select a few additional testimonies 
from the Fathers, and request you to give them 
your serious attention. 

Hilary^ in his commentary on i Timothy iii. af- 
firms " The ordination of Bishop and Presbyter is 



* It ought to be recollected, that the Epistle from which 
the above extract is taken, was written to some people in 
Spain, who wished advice in a case in which the right of the 
people to chnose their own Bishop was immediately concern- 
ed ; and that it was written not in the name of Cyprian only, 
but in that of the African Synod. 

s 



206 LETTER V. 

$ne and the sajne.'' Could he possibly have said 
this, if they had been different orders, and had re- 
ceived a different ordination ? 

Chrysostom^ in his 14th homily, on Acts vi. de- 
clares, that, " in his time such Deacons as the Apos^ 
'* ties ordained were not in the Church." This 
incontestibly shows that, in his day, the Apostolic 
order of the Church with regard to her officers, 
had been invaded and altered by human contrivance, 
which is precisely the position for which we con- 
tend. 

The following passage from Basils Bishop of Cte- 
sareay who was contemporary with yerome^ is also 
worthy of notice. — ^^ Christ says, Lovest thou me, 
^^ Peter ^ more than these ? Feed my sheep. And 
" from thence he gave to all Pastors and Doctors 
" equal power ; whereof this is a token, that all qf 
" them, as Peter A\A^ bind and loose^.'* 

In the 4th Council oi Carthage^ the following 
Canon was passed: " Let the Bishop, when he is 
" in the Church, and sitting in the Presbytery, be 
^' placed in a higher seat ; but when he is in the 
" house, let him know that he is the colleague of the 
'^ Presbyters." Can. Z5. By the same Council it 
was enacted, " that every Bishop should reside in 
*' a small house near the Church in which he offi- 
" ciated" — that he should have " plain and even 
** coarse household furniture"-— and that ** h$ 
" should give himself perpetually to reading, pray- 
*' ing, and preaching." Can. 14, 15. 20. 

• Comtitut. Monastic, Cap. 22. p. 715. 



Testimony of the Fathers. 207 

In the Apostolical Constitutioiis the following pas- 
sages are found, which Dr. Bowden is bound, on 
his own principles, to respect, and admit. Lib. ii. 
Cap. 27. ^' It behoves you, brethren, to bring your 
*' sacrifices and oblations to the Bishop, as to the 
" high priest, and offer them, cither by yourselves, 
" or by the Deacons. Offer the Bishop also your 
" first fruits and tythes, and your voluntary gifts ; 
" for he knows the poor, and gives to every one 
** what is convenient ; lest one receive twice or of- 
" tener the same day, or the same week, and an- 
*' other receive not so much as once." Cap. 31. 
*' The Deacon must give nothing to any poor man 
" without the Bishop's knowledge and consent." 
Cap^ 44. " The Deacon must be the Bishop's eye, 
" and ear, and mouth, nay, his heart and soul, that 
*' the Bishop may be only taken up with the weigh- 
" tier affairs of his flock." Here it is evident that 
the business of the Deacons was to take care of the 
poor. This is exactly the doctrine of the Presby- 
terians, and, what is much more important, of the 
New Testament. Here it is evident, also, that no 
poor man was to be relieved without the knowledge 
and approbation of the Bishop ; who, it is express- 
ly said, is presumed to know all the poor, and to 
be able to give to every one what is convenient. 
Could this officer have been any other than the Pas- 
tor of a single flock ? 

Again; the same Apostolical Constitutions xhws 
describe the ordinary solemnities of public worship. 
Lib. II. Cap. 57. " When thou, O Bishop, hast 



208 LETTER V* 

" called together the Church of God, like the mas- 
" ter of a ship, require them to asserable often, 
*' with all prudence and regularity of discipline. 
^' Command the Deacons^ as so many mariners, 
" that they appoint convenient places for all the 
" brethren, as for so many passengers, with all care 
" and decency. And first let the house of worship 
*' be obiong, turned toward the east, having seats 
^' (or pevjsj on both sides, towards the east, and 
" like a ship. In the middle place let the Bishop\ 
*' seat be ; and on both sides of him let the Pres^ 
" byters sit. But let the Deacons stand ready for 
" service, lightly clothed, for they are like the ma- 
" riners, and those that order the sides of the ship. 
" By their care, let the laymen sit quietly and or- 
" derly in one part of the Church : and the women 
'' also by themselves, abstaining from talking. Let 
" the Reader, standing in the middle, in some high 
^' place, read the Books of Moses^ £5?c. The read- 
'^ ing being finished, let another sing the hymns of 
" David. Then let our Acts (i. e. the Acts of the 
^' Apostles J and the Epistles^ be recited. After 
'' these things let the Presbyters exhort the peo- 
" pie ; and last of all the Bishops who is like the 
" master of the ship. Let the Door-keepers stand 
^' at the Church doors, where the men enter ; and 
" the Deaconesses where the women enter. If 
" any be found sitting out of his own place, let the 
*' Deacon reprove him, and let him be conducted 
" to a proper place. Let the Deacons take care 
*« that none whisper, sleep, laugh, pod, he. After 



Testimony of the Fathers* 209 

"the catechumens and penitents have retired, let 
" the Deacons prepare for the celebration of the 
" Eucharist^ £sfc." 

No one can read these rules without perceiving 
that they relate to the ordinary worship of Chris- 
tian assemblies, v/hen convened on the sabbath. 
To doubt this, is to fly in the face of common 
sense. Yet we find the presence of the Bishop, in 
every public service, spoken of as indispensable. 
Is it not manifest, then, that this Bishop could only 
have been the Pastor of a single flock ? 

The sixth General Council of Constantinople^ 
which was held about the year 692, acknowledged 
the " Scripture Deacons to be no other than over* 
" seers of the poor ; and that this was the opinion 
** of the ancient Fathers." Can* 16. Here is an- 
other explicit acknowledgment, that the Apostolic 
constitution of the Church, as to her officers, was 
notoriously changed, prior to the year 692. 

The Council of Aix la Chapelle^ held about the 
year 816, in the most unequivocal terms owned the 
original identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and 
expressly declared, that '^ the ordination of the 
*' clergy was reserved to the high-priest only for 
" the maintenance of his dignity.'' Can. 8. Could 
this form of expression have been thought correct 
if Presbyters were, by divine right, destitute of the 
power of ordaining ? Certainly not. 

Some other facts, which are ascertained from the 
writings of the Fathers, and which were mentioned 
in my former Letters, deserve further considera- 
S 2 



210 LETT EH V, 

tion. We are informed, by several early writers, 
that the Bishops^ daring the first three centuries^ 
were alone considered as authorized to administer 
Baptism and the Lord^s Supper. From Ignatius^ 
TertuUian^ and Cyprian^ we learn that Christians^ 
in those days, received the Eucharist from no hands 
but those of the Bishop ; and that Baptism was 
considered as his appropriate work, and never to 
be administered by any other hands, unless in cases 
of necessity. Again, in the 30th Canon of the 
Council of Agatha^ it is said — ^' It shall not be 
" lawful for a Presbyter in the Church to pronounce 
^' the benediction on the people, or to bless a peni- 
^' tent." Now, when it is notorious, that, in those 
days, the hordes Supper was administered every 
sabbath, and in some Churches oftener ; when ca- 
ses oi Baptism doubdess continually occurred ; and 
when pronouncing the benediction on the people 
made, then, as well as now, a part of every public 
service ; it Is plain that the presence of a Bishop 
was considered as indispensable, every Lord's day, 
in every worshipping assembly. Is it not evident, 
when this was the case, that the Bishop could have 
been nothing less or more than the Pastor of a^m- 
gk Church ? 

Dr. Bowde?! dots not attempt to deny the facts 
here alleged. They are, indeed, so abundantly 
confirmed by the voice of antiquity, that he can- 
not possibly call them in question. But he endea- 
vours to evade their force by saying, that these wri- 
ters only mean in general to represent the Bishop 



Testimony of ike Fathers* 2^1 

as the fountain of all ecclesiastical power ; and to 
assf^rt that none have a right to administer the or- 
dinances of religion, excepting those who are em- 
powered by him. And, in like manner, and on the 
same principle, he intimates, that the Presb\ters in the 
Episcopal Church, baptize and administer the Eu- 
charist in virtue of permission given them by the 
Bishop for that purpose. This is an evasion unwor- 
thy of Dr. B.'s understanding and gravity* The 
writers above quoted, undoubtedly convey the idea, 
that administering Baptism and the sacrament of 
the horcPs Supper was the appropriate and peculiar 
work of the Bishop as such ; that in cases of ne* 
cessity only they might commit these ordinances to 
other hands ; but that for every such dispensation 
there must be a distinct expression of the Bishop's 
will, and his leave expressly obtained. In short, the 
idea evidently meant to be conveyed is, that cer- 
tain acts could be done regularly by the Bishop 
only; but that in cases of sickness, necessary ab- 
sence, &c. he might empov/er some one to perform 
them as his substitute ; just as, annong Presbyte- 
rians, the administration of sealing ordinances is 
considered as the appropriate duty of each Pastor 
within his parish; though at the same time, if he 
have an assistant^ or if any other ordained minister 
happen to be present, the Pastor may, without 
transgressing any ecclesiastical law, request him to 
officiate in his room : it being always remembered, 
however, that for every such act^ a new request, and 
a new permission, on the part of the Pastor, are ne- 



212 LETTER V. 

eessary* But does this bear any resemblance to 
the Episcopal system, in which Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper are in no degree the appropriated 
duty of a Prelate ; but according to which every 
Presbyter, whether behave the charge of a congre- 
gation or not, is considered as possessing, in virtue 
of his general commission, a right to administer 
both the sacraments, at all times, and in all places, 
without consulting his Bishop ? I am astonished 
that Dr. Bowden could so far impose on himself 
as to imagine that there is any resemblance between 
the two cases. 

After all, then, that Dr. Bowden has urged 
against my exhibition of the testimony of the Fa- 
thers, it appears that he has not succeeded in set- 
ting aside a single material fact, or in refuting a 
single important argument, which I had deduced 
from the works of those early writers. 

It appears, that the titles. Bishop and Presbyter^ 
were promiscuously applied to the same persons, 
not only in the Apostolic age, but also till the close 
cf the second ctvUnYY* This Dr. Bowden himself 
acknowledges; though he asserts, at the same time, 
that in the second century, it was seldom so applied. 
Now if the interchangeable application of these 
terms was continued until that time, and after- 
wards does not occur, must we not conclude, that 
about^or immediately after that time, some change 
took place in the arrangement of ecclesiastical dig- 
nities, which led to a more restricted use of the 



Testbnony of the Fathers. 213 

word Bishop? No supposition can be more natu- 
ral; and it is precisely this for which we contend. 

It appears, that Dr. Bowden has not produced, 
and cannot produce, a single sentence, from any 
writer within the first two hundred years, which 
gives the least hint that Ordination or Conjirmation 
was in fact confined to a particular order of Pre- 
lates, or was considered as a rite which ought to be 
so confined. 

It appears, that Presbyters are expressly repre- 
sented by early writers, and particularly by Ignatius 
and Irenceus^ as the successors of the Apostles^ and 
as presiding over the Church. 

It appears, that in every worshipping assembly^ in 
the primitive church, the presence of a Bishop was 
considered as indispensable. That it was the Bi- 
shop's peculiar duty to preach, and to bless the peo- 
ple ; to administer Baptism, and the Lord's Sup- 
per ; to attend to the case of every poor person m 
his parish that needed relief; to celebrate, or give 
his personal consent to the celebration, of all mar- 
riages among the people of his charge ; to visit 
the sick ; to instruct the children of his flock sta- 
tedly every week ; and, in short, to perform all 
those duties whch are now, and ever have been 
considered, as the proper work of a parish minis- 
ter. 

It appears, after all that has been said to the con- 
trarj^, that the number of Bishops found, in early 
times, in small districts of country, precludes the 



214 LETTER V- 

idea of their having been any other than parish 
ministers. 

It appears, that, even after a kind of Prelacy 
arose, the Bishops were still, for the most part, on- 
4y Pastors of single congregations ; and that there 
was little, if any other difference between them 
and their Presbyters, than that which now subsists 
between Pastors and their Assistants^ in Presbyte- 
rian Churches, and Rectors and their Curates^ in 
Episcopal Churches, 

It appears xh2it Jerome^ after all the unwearied 
pains which have been taken by high-church -men, to 
set aside his testimony, does explicitly declare, that 
Presbyterian parity was the Apostolic and primitive 
form of Church government ; and that this form 
Vf2iS afterwards^ and gradually exchanged for Pre^ 
lacy. And it is evident, moreover, that some of 
the most learned and zealous Episcopal Divines 
have so understood him. 

It appears from jerome^ that the first approach 
towards Prelacy was the standing moderator ship of 
one of the Presbyters; that this began in the 
Church of Alexandria very early ; soen, if not im- 
mediately after the days of Mark the Evangelist ; 
and that this was the only kind of clerical imparity 
that existed in that Church until the middle of the 
third century, when it gave place to some higher 
encroachments of ecclesiastical ambition. 

It appears from several unexceptionable testimo- 
nies, that Deacons in the primitive Church, were 
not an order of Clergy at all ; that they were only 



Testimony of the Fathers* 215 

entrusted with the care of the poor^ and employed 
to assist in the administration of the LorcTs Supper^ 
as in the Presbyterian Church at present; and that 
their gradually coming to be considered as a third 
order of Clergy, was, like the claims of the Pre- 
lates, an innovation. 

It appears, from the declaration of several Fa- 
thers, besides Jerome^ that some change in the pow- 
ers and prerogatives of Bishops, did actually take 
place, within the first three centuries ; and that 
several things were appropriated to Bishops in the 
third ^nd fourth centuries, which those writers as- 
sert were not appropriated to them in the Apostolic 
age^. 

Finally, it appears, from all that has been said, 
that the writings of the Fathers, instead of speak- 

• Among the Fathers mentioned in my former rolume, as 
speaking" of this change, is Hilary, I represent him as say- 
ing, " And in Egypt, even at this day, the Presbyters ordain 
" CconsignantJ in the Bishop's absence.*' Dr. Boivden as- 
serts, that the word co7isignant has no reference to ordination. 
He does not, indeed, appear to be certain what it does signi- 
fy ; but is very confident that it cannot mean ordination. I 
forgot to notice this in its proper place ; and have now nei- 
ther time, nor room to make more than tvio remarks upon it. 
The^r^f is, that several eminent Episcopal Divines, and, 
among others. Bishop Forbes, have understood Hilary as I 
do, to be speaking here of ordination. The second remark is, 
that whatever religious rite it is that Hilary refers to, it is 
something which the Bishops, in his day, generally claimed 
as their prerogative ; but which had not been aliaays appro- 
priated to them ; and which even in his time, in the Bishop's 
absence, the Presbyters considered themselves is empowered 
to perform. This is sufficient for my puiipose. 



216 LETTER V. 

ing '' decisively" and " unanimously" in favour of 
Prelacy, as some of our high-toned Episcopal bre- 
thren assert, do not produce a single testimony, 
w^ithin the prescribed limits, which gives the least 
countenance to the prelatical claim ; and that we 
are abundantly warranted (to repeat the language 
of Bishop Croft^ formerly cited) in pronouncing, 
that the proofs brought to support this claim are 
altogether " weak ; no Scripture ; no primitive 
" general Council ; no general consent of primitive 
" Doctors and Fathers ; no, not one primitive Fa* 
" ther of note, speaking particularly and home to 
" the purpose,*' of its advocates. 



( ^^r ) 



LETTER VL 



Testimony of the Reformers* 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

In the sixth of my former Letters, I endeavoured 
to show that the great body of the Reformers^ and 
other Witnesses for the Truths in difitrent ages and 
nations, were Presbyterians in principle. This al- 
legation, and the proof by which it is supported, 
Dn Boxvden^ according to his usual manner, confi- 
dently rejects, and pronounces a toiai misrepresen* 
tation. With what justice he does this, a few re- 
marks will enable you to determine. 

I asserted that the Waldenses were substantially 
Presbyterians, both in principle and practice ; that, 
among other points, in which they rejected the 
corruptions of the Romish Church, they held, that 
there ought to be no diversity of rank among the 
ministers of the Gospel ; and that Bishops and 
Presbyters, according to the word of God, and 
primitive usage, were the same order. All this. 
Dr. Borvden denies; and insists that the Waldenses 
were uniformly Episcopal in their ecclesiastical 
character. The folsowing testimonies will snow on 
which side the truth lies. 
T 



218 LETTER VI. 

yokii Paid Perrhi^ who was himself a Pastor 
aiTiong them, in his History of that people, de- 
livers at length, '' the discipline under which the 
*' Waldenses and Alhigenses lived; extracted out 
^' of divers authentic manuscripts, written in their 
*•' own language, several hundreds of years 
*^ before Luther or Calvin." From this work 
the following extracts are made. Art. 2. " Of 
*' Pastors.^^ " All they that are to be received as 
^'^ Pastors amongst us, whilst they are yet with 
'*^ their ov/n people, are to entreat ours, that they 
*'' would be pleased to receive them to the mi- 
'^ nistry ; and to pray to God that they may be 
'' made worthy of so great an office. We also 
" appoint them their lectures, and set them their 
'^^ task, causing them to learn by memory all the 
^' chapters of St. Matthew and St. jfohn^ and all 
^^ the Epistles that are canonical, and a good part 
'' of the writings of Solomon^ David^ and the PrO' 
^^ phets. Afterwards, having produced good tes- 
*•' timonials, and being well approved for their suf- 
" ficiency, they are received with imposition of 
^^ hands into the office of teachers. He that is ad- 
" mitted in the last place, shall not do any thing 
'' without the leave or allowance of him that was 
'' admitted before him. As also he that was ad- 
^' mitted first, shall do nothing without the leave of 
" his associates, to the end that all things, with us, 
'* may be done in order. Diet and apparel are 
" given unto us freely, and by way of alms, and that 
** with sufficiency, by those good people whom we 



Testimony of the Reformers. 219 

^* teach. Amongst other powers and abilities 
^* which God hath given to his Servants, he hath 
*^ given authority to choose leaders, to rule the peo- 
*' pie, and to ordain Elders in their charges. — 
" When any of us, the aforesaid Pastors, falls 
" into any gross sins, he is both excommunicated, 
" and prohibited to preach." Art. 4. '' Our Pas- 
" tors do call assemblies once every year, to deter- 
" mine of all affairs in a general Synod^.'' 

In another Confession of Faith^ drawn up about 
the year 1220, they declare that the functions of 
M'misters consist in " preaching the word and ad- 
ministering sacraments,^' and that " all other min- 
isterial things may be reduced to the aforesaid.'' 
Speaking of the rite of Confirmation^ and of the Po- 
pish claims that it must be administered by a BU 
shop^ they assert, that ^' it has no ground at all in 
" Scripture ; that it was introduced by the DeviPs 
'* msti^ation^ to seduce the people ; that by such 

means thc^r migrht be induced the more to be- 
" lieve the ceremonies, and the i^o^essitij of the 
^ Bishops^:' 

In the same work, (chap. 4.) it is expressly and 
repeatedly asserted, that the Synods of the IValden* 
ses were composed of Ministers and Elders. This 
mode of speaking is surely not Episcopah 

The same historian tells us, that V/aldo^ (from 
whose name that of the Waldenses is said to be deriv- 

* PlSRRI^^'3 Hhtory of the Old Waldenses, Part ii. Book v. 
Chap. 7. 
\ Ibid. Chap. 8. 



^20 LETTER VI. 

ed,) " upon his departure from Lyons^ came Into 
Dauphiny^ and thence, having erected some 
Churches, and laid the foundation of those which 
have been miraculously preserved there to this 
day, he went into Langiiedoc^ and left some nota- 
" ble Pastors there, who set up and governed those 
Churches, which afterwards cost the Pope and 
" his clergy so much pains to destroy*." No\r it 
is certain that Waldo himself was no Prelate ; nei- 
ther can we suppose that the Pastors whom he left 
in Languedoc^ were Prelates. Yet these Pastors 
setup and goveriied Churches. 

In perfect coincidence with all this, Is the test!- 
mony of Gillis^ in his History of the Waldenses. 
This writer, like Perr'in^ was one of the Pastors of 
that people, and therefore perfectly qualified to give 
an account of their peculiar doctrines and practi- 
ces. He speaks familiarly of the Pastors of their 
Churches, in the Presbyterian style. He says, 
^' These Pastors^ in their ordinary assemblies, 
" came together «"^ xitid a Synod once a year, and 
" must generally in the month of September^ at 
" which they examined the Students, and admitted 
" them to the 7?iinistry.^^ Chap. ii. p. 12. 

In their Confession of Faith^ which Gillis inserts 
at length, in the " Addition" to his work, p. 490, 
and which he expressly informs us was the confes- 
sion of the ancient as well as the modern JValdenses ; 
in Article 31, they declare, " It is necessary for the 

* JPart II. Book ii. Chap. 9. 



TestimGnif of the Reformers. 221 

" Church to have Pastors esteemed sufficiently 
" learned, and exemplary in their conduct, as well 
'' to preach God's word, as to administer the sa- 
" craments, and watch over the sheep of Jesus 
" Christ, together with the Elders and Deacons^ 
** according to the rules of good and holy Church 
*^ discipline, and the practice of the primicive 
« Church." 

Here is better testimony than Thuanus or WaU 
^ingham^ than 3Ioshehn or AUix.. Here are the 
declarations of the Waldenses themselves. And I 
%vill venture to say that there is not a syllable in the 
above extracts which has the most distant appear- 
ance of Prelacy. On the contrary, they all bear 
the most decisive indications of Presbyterian pari- 
ty. But besides this, Bellarmme acknowledges 
that the Waldenses denied the divine right of Pre- 
lacy. Medina^ in the council of Trent^ declared 
that the Waldenses were of the same mind with 
Aerius on this subject. And the learned Episco- 
palian, Professor Raignolds^ in his famous Letter 
to Sir Francis Knollys^ asserts, that the Waldenses^ 
and all others who had distinguished themselves 
as opposers of Popery, and as Reformers of the 
Church, for 500 years, prior to the seventeenth cen^ 
tury^ had uniformly taught that " all Pastors^ 
" whether styled Bishops or Priests^ have one and 
" the same authority by the word of God." 

Dr. Bowden also insists, in opposition to my 
statement, that the Bohemian Churches were Epis- 
copal, in his sense of the word. In this, however^ 
T 2 



222 LETTER VI. 

as in the former case, he is contradicted by the 
most unquestionable testimony. In their Confession^ 
there is not only a profound silence as to any dis- 
tinction or difference of degrees among Pastors ; 
but, what is more decisive, they place ordination^ 
and excommunication, as well as preaching the gos- 
pel, not in the power of one, but in the hands of 
Presbyters and Brethren of the ministry. And in 
their Book of Order ^ or Discipline^ p. 20. we have 
the following express words. ^'' It is true, the Bo^ 
" hemians have certain Bishops^ or Superintendents^ 
" who are conspicuous for age and gilts ; and cho- 
" sen by the suffrages of ail the ministers, for the 
" keeping of order, and to see that all the rest do 
" their office. Four, or five, or six such have they, 
^' as need requires ; and each of these has his dio- 
" cese. But the dignity of these above other mi- 
" nisters, is not founded in the prerogative of Ao- 
'^ noiirs or revenues^ but of labours and ^ cares for 
" others. And, according to the Apostles* rules ^ a 
" Presbyter and Bishop are one and the same 
" thingJ*^ But it is to be presumed that Dr. Boxv^ 
den will not doubt a moment longer, when he is 
told, that even his own favourite high-churck his- 
torian. Dr. Heylin^ explicitly grants that the BoliC' 
inian Churches were not Episcopal, either in prin- 
ciple or practice. In his History of the Presbyte* 
rians^ p. 409, 410. there is the following decisive 
passage. " About the year 1400, v/e find a strong 
'' party to be raised amongst the Bohemians^ against 
" some superstitions and corruptions in the Church 



Testimony of the Reformers. 223 

" of Rome ; occasioned, as some say, by reading 
" the works of WickUjfe^ and by the diligence of 
*^ Picordus^ a Fleming, as is affirnied by some 
'^ others, from whom they had the name of /V- 
*' card'i. Cruelly persecuted by their own kings, 
'^ and publicly condemned in the Council of Con^ 
^' stance^ they continued constant, notwithstanding, 
" to their own persuasions. In this condition they 
*' remained till the preaching of Luther^ and the 
'' receiving of the Aiigiistan Confession in most 
*' parts of the empire, which gave them so much 
" confidence as to purge themselves from all for- 
" mer calumnies, by publishing a declaration of 
" their faith and doctrine ; which they presented 
" at Vienna to the Archduke Ferdinand^ about 
" ten years before chosen king of Bohemia; to- 
" gether with a large apology prefixed before it, 
" By which Confession it appears that they ascribe 
" no power to the civil magistrate in the concern- 
" ments of the Church ; that they had fallen upon 
" a xvay of ordaining ministers amongst themselves^ 
" xuithout recourse unto the Bishops or any such su- 
" perior officer as a superintendent ; and finally, 
" that they retained the use of excommunication, 
" and ether ecclesiastical censures, for the chasti- 
" sing of irregular and scandalous persons.'' 

As to the observations made by Dr. Boxvden^ and 
his clerical friend in Philadelphia^ on the testimony 
of Thuanus^ Enceas Sylvius^ and Wahingham^ res- 
pecting the Waldenscs and the Boheraian Brethren^ 
I consider them as unworthy of notice. It would 



224 LETTER VI. 

be easy for me to show, that these writers really 
say what I ascribe to them ; and that they are enti- 
tle<;l to credit. It would also be easy to pro- 
duce passages from Alphonso de Castro^ Voetius^ 
and other learned writers, who, in the most posi- 
tive terms, give the same account of those celebrat- 
ed witnesses for the truth. But it is unnecessary. 
The authority of their own historians and Confes- 
sions of Faith is paramount to every other^. 

Dr. Boxvden does not deny that Wickliffe held 
the doctrine of Presbyterian parity. But in order 
to diminish the weight of this fact, he endeavours 
to destroy the character of that illustrious Refor- 
mer, by repeating the accusations brought against 
him by some virulent Papists. I must say that I 
expected more prudence^ if not more consistency^ 
from this gentleman. It is really astonishing to find 
a Protestant Divine so often obliged to avail him- 
self of the arguments, the cavils, and even the 

* Amang the few gratifications which this controversy has 
afforded me, none of the least is, that it has led me to peruse, 
witli particular care, the History and the Confessions of the 
Waldenses, who are allowed, by all Protestants, to have been 
the purest part of the Christian Church during the dark ages. 
Their coincidence with our Church, in almost all respects, 
both of doctrine and discipline, is really remarkable. Our 
Baptist brethren, among other advocates of error, have some- 
times ventured to assert, with confidence, that the Waldenses 
were Anti-pcedobaptists. I take for granted that those who 
have made this assertion, never read the ancient Confessioyis 
of that celebrated people. In those Confessions, and other 
authentic documents concerning them, the P<edobaptist doc- 
trine is unequivocally and strongly maintained. 



Testimony of the Reformers. 225 

violence of Papists^ in order to support his cause. 
But his attempt, in this instance, is as impotent as 
it is reprehensible. Wickliffe will continue to be hailed 
as the " Morning Star of the Reformation," and 
honoured as an eminent *^ Witness for the Truth,^ 
and that by the great body of learned and pious 
Episcopalians, as well as others, when the slanders 
with which his character has been aspersed shall 
have " gone the v/ay of all such mis-begotten 
things." 

With respect to Tyndal^ Laynbert^ Barnes^ Ham* 
iltorij and other distinguished martyrs for the truth 
in Great-Britain^ before the time of Cranmer^ it is 
notorious that they, with one voice, maintained the 
doctrine of Presbyterian parity- Dr. Bowden^ in- 
deed, denies this, with respect to Tyndal and LaiU" 
bert^ or rather endeavours to put an unnatural gloss 
on their language. It really surprizes me that such 
an attempt should be made by a gentleman who 
professes to be acquainted with the history of the 
Reformation in Britain. 

But Dr. Boxvden seems to be most of all offen- 
ded at my having asserted, that i\rchbishop Cran- 
mer, and the Fathers of the Reformation in Eng^ 
land, generally, believed that Bishop and Presby- 
ter were the same, by divine right ; and that minis- 
terial parity was the doctrine and practice of the 
primitive Church. He denies this position with 
warmth and confidence; and insists that those 
venerable Reformers were firm believers in the di- 
vine institution of Prelacy. Mr. How takes the 



226 LETTER VI, 

same ground, with even greater warmtli, and with 
much acriirionious remark. On this point, my ob- 
servations shall be few and short. 

Dr. Bowden^ in many of his statements concern- 
ing the Reformation in England^ avowedly relies 
on the authority of Heylin and Collier. With res- 
pect to these writers, I think proper, once for all, 
to declare, that I place no reliance either on the 
candour or the truth of their representations. And 
cf course that no alleged fact, which does not rest 
on some other testimony, will be acknowledged by 
me. The learned and able Editors of the Chris" 
tian Observer^ who, as was before observed, are 
warm Episcopalians^ speak of these writers in the 
following manner : '•• Mr. Daubeny,'' say they, " in 
*^ many of his references to historical facts, and in 
** the deductions made from them, professedly fol- 
'' lows authorities of a highly exceptionable nature. 
** Every reader who is conversant with the present 
** subject of debate, knows how forcibly this re- 
" mark applies to the writings of Collier and Heylin^ 
" We speak from a careful comparison of what 
'^ they have written, with the sources from which 
*^ they drew, or might have drawn their materials 
*< _^when we affirm, that in all matters immediate- 
*^ ly bearing upon the Calvinistic controversy, they 
^^ are most unsafe guides. Of Dr. Het/lin^ in parti- 
*' cular, we have no hesitation in saying, that we do 
" not know of any author, ancient or modern, in 
*^ whose pages is to be found a larger portion of 
^^ false reasonings, incorsrect statements, and pal- 



Testimony of the Reformers. 227 

" pable misrepresentations^." Bishop Burnet^ in 
the preiace to his History of the Rejormation^ de- 
clares, ''' Either Heylin was very ill informed, or 
" very much led by his passions ; and being 
" wrought on by most violent prejudices, against 
" some that were concerned in that time, delivers 
*' many things in such a manner, and so strangely, 
" that one would think he had been secretly set on 
" to it by those of the Church of Rome. In one 
" thing he is not to be excused, that he never 
" vouched any authority for what he writ, which is 
" not to be forgiven any who write of transactions 
" beyond their own time, and deliver new things 
" not known before. So that upon what grounds 
'' he wrote a great deal of his book we can only 
" conjecture, and many in their guesses are not 
" apt to be very favourable to him." Of the same 
wretched bigot and calumniator, Bishop Barlow 
uses this strong language — " Peter Heylin!^ angry, 
and (to our Church and truth) scandalous wri- 
tingsf.'' 

I had stated, that the Bishop^s Book composed by 
Cranmer^ and several other Prelates, in 1537, and 
subscribed by nineteen Bishops, and by the lower 
house of Convocation, expressly declared that in 
the New Testament, there is no mention made of 
any other ecclesiastical orders " than Deacons or 
" Ministers^ and Presbyters or Bishops J^ I also 

♦ Christ, 06s. Vol. iii. p. 429. 

f BarloTj^s Genuine Fefnains, p. 181. 



228 lETTER VI. 

asserted, that another Book, drawn up and publish- 
ed by the same high authority, in 1542, taught, in 
the most explicit terms, a similar doctrine. To 
this Dr. Bovjden replies that he has examined 
Collier^ who undertakes to give an abstract of both 
these books, and that he does not find in him " a 
" syllable of what I have quoted, but much to the 
" contrary.'' My authorities are Calamy^s Defence 
of moderate Nonconformity^ p. 91. and NeaPs His^ 
tory of the Puritans ; in both which the writers 
profess to quote the^ very words of the Books in 
question : And whether a direct and positive state- 
ment^ by authors of undoubted character, does not 
more than countervail the silence of a writer, who, 
as Episcopalians themselves acknowledge, is not to 
be depended on, let every impartial reader decide. 
Now when it is considered, that those venera- 
ble Reformers unquestionably drew up and pub- 
lished the Books which have been just mention- 
ed : When we find Professor Raignolds^ one of 
the most learned and pious Episcopal Divines of 
his day, and who lived within about half a cen- 
tury after Cranmer and his associates, expressly as- 
serting that they did not place Prelacy on the foot- 
ing of divine right"^ : When we find Bishop Stilling* 
fleets in his Irenicum^ and several other eminent . 
Episcopal Divines, strongly asserting the same 
thing, not as their opinion merely, but as a fact: 
And when we find Dr. White^ of Pennsylvania j now 

* See my former Letters, p. 251. 



Tesihnony of the Reformers* 229 

Bishop of the Episcopal Church in that State, de- 
daring, after the best examination that he had been 
able to give the subject, that those illustrious Di^ 
vines did not establish or defend Prelacy as a mat- 
ter of divine right* — When these things are con- 
sidered, I presume every impartial judge will ad- 
mit, that they form a mass of evidence incompa' 
rably more weighty than the opinions of Dr, BoW" 
den and Mr. Hotu^ with the partial and prejudiced 
Collier to aid them. 

I asserted, that, about the year 1547, in an assem- 
bly of Divines called by Edward VI. archbishop 
Cranmer^ in answer to a question respecting the 
office of Bishops and Presbyters, replied, " Bishops 
and Priests were at one time, and were not tzvo 
things^ but one office in the beginning of Christ's Re- 
ligion." And that two other Bishops, together with 
Dr. Redmayn^ and Dr. Cox^ delivered a similar 
opinion in still stronger terms ; and that several of 
them quoted ferome as a decisive authority in sup- 
port of their opinion. 

To this, Dr. Boxvden replies, in the first place, 
that he can see nothing in Cranmers answer incon- 
sistent with Episcopal pre-eminence. Indeed! 
Were any one to ask Dr. B. himself, as King Ed*^ 
xvard did that assembly, " Whether Bishops or 
Priests were first; and if the Priests were first, 
whether the Priests made the Bishops?" would 

* The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States 
cgnsidered. 12mo. Philad. 1782. 

u 



230 LETTER VI* 

he answer as Cranmer did ; that Bishops and 
Priests were not two things in the beginning 
of Christ's religion, but one and the same office ? 
Could he lay his hand on his heart, and say that 
he would consider such an answer as agreeable to 
his principles ? The archbishop not only declares 
that the names of Bishop and Priest were inter- 
changeably applied ; but that they were one things 
or one office in the beginning of Christ's religion. — 
The Bishop of Londonh answer, in the same assem- 
bly, is in a similar strain. " I think," says he, 
" the Bishops were first ; and yet I think it is not 
" of importance whether the Priest then made the 
)^ Bishop, or the Bishop the Priest ; considering 
" (after the sentence of St. Jerome J that in the 
" beginning of the Church there was none (or if it 
" were, very small) difference between a Bishop 
" and a Priest, especially touching the significa- 
" tion." The man who can say that this answer 
only asserts the iudiscriminate application of na7nes 
in the primitive Church, must have a strange me- 
thod of interpreting language. 

Dr. B.'s ^ecc^r^rf objection to my argument drawn 
from this answer, is, that the assembly, in which 
Cranmer^ and his associates delivered these opin- 
ions, was not called in 1547, but seven years before, 
in the reign of Henry VIII. when the minds of 
the Reformers, just emerging from the darkness of 
Popery, were unsettled and immature. He asserts, 
that, afterwards, on further inquiry, they entertain- 



'Testimony of the Reformers. 23 1 

ed a different opinion. In this representation also 
Mr. How concurs. 

It is certain that Stillingfleet^ with the original 
manuscripts relating to this subject in his hand, 
declares that this assembly v/as called by Edtvard 
VI. about the year 1547. It is certain that Bishop 
Burnet quotes the very same manuscripts, under 
the name of Bishop Stilling fleet* s. And it is 
equally certain that the former does not charge the 
latter with mistake in his date. I readily grant, 
however, that when the several passages of these 
two writers are carefully compared, it is not easy 
to decide on the correct date, with absolute certain- 
ty^. But at whatever period this assembly was 
called, Bishop Burnet speaks of the answers which 
its members gave in the following strong terms of 
approbation. " This paper the reader will find in 
" the collection, of which, though it be somewhat 
" large, yet I thought such pieces were of too great 
" importance not to be communicated to the 
" world ; since it is, perhaps, as great an evidence 
" of the ripeness of their proceedings, as can be 
" shown in any Churchy or any a^e of itf." 

Both Dr. Bowden and Pvlr. Hoxv assert that 
Archbishop Cra;2wer published a Catechism m 1548, 

* Dr. Bo%\iden undoubtedly mistakes when he dates this 
assembly in 1538, and assig-ns as a reason that a certain Paper 
is signed by Fox, Bishop of Hereford, who died that year. 
Dr. B. is here confounding two very different things, as he 
will instantly sec by comparing several passages in Biuniet, 
Vol. 1. p. 248. 289. Collection XXI. Addenda V. 

t Hist. Ref, I. p. 289. 



S32 iETTER VI, 

and a Sermon^ about the same time, in both which 
they assure us he delivered doctrines ^^ as highly 
Episcopal as any thing can be." Dr. Bowden has 
given a short extract from the latter of these pub- 
lications, and took care, no doubt, to select the 
strongest and most decisive passage he could find. 
But, strange to tell ! this passage affords no proof 
that the Archbishop believed in the divine institution 
of Prelacy at all. It speaks of the ministry of the 
word being derived from the Apostles by the im- 
position of hands. And do not many Presbyterian$ 
speak the same language ? It speaks of the Apos- 
tles making Bishops and Priests. And does not 
every Presbyterian grant that there were many 
Presbyters in the Apostles' days who had no pas- 
toral charge, and who were, of course, no Bishops ? 
Is Dr. B. unable to understand this ? or does he 
xylose his eyes against it? I take for granted that 
all Cranmerh " high-church notions," as Mr. Haw 
calls them, if candidly examined, would be found 
to be of a similar kind. 

Dr. Boxvden admits that in the 13th year of the 
reign oi Elizabeth^ there was an act passed which 
admitted into the Church of England^ those who 
had received ordination in the foreign Reformed 
Churches, on their subscribing the articles of faith. 
'Now as there was no other, strictly speaking, than 
Presbyterian ordination in ajiy of the foreign Re- 
formed Churches, it is manifest that this was a 
great national acknowledgment of the validity of 



Testimony of the Reformers. 233 

such ordinations. Dr. Boxuden contends, however, 
that, from the language of Strype^ in his Annals^ it 
is evident that this Act was not designed to recog-^ 
nize as valid the ordinations in all the Reformed 
Churches ; but only to comprehend, besides the Pa- 
pists, " such ministers as had received their ordi- 
nation in some of those Churches, when they were 
in exile under Queen MaryT And by the phrase, 
'' some of the foreign Reformed Churches,'' Dr. 
B. thinks was probably meant, the Churches of 
Sweden^ Denmark^ and Bohemia^ which he insists 
were Episcopal in their form. It will, hereafter, 
be shown, that none of these Churches were Episco* 
pal^ in Dr. Boxvden\ sense of the word ; and, there- 
fore, that the ordinations in question, even if they 
had been performed in those Churches, would have 
been nothing to his purpose. But this is not the 
worst part of the Doctor's blunder. It is notorious 
that not one of the Exiles under the reign of Ma* 
ry ever settled in Swedeti^ Denmark^ or Bohemia^ 
or ever received ordination in any of those coun- 
tries. I appeal to all the accounts of their exile, by 
whomsoever written, for the truth of this fact. 
Some of those persecuted Protestants went to 
France and Flanders ; some to Geneva ; and others 
to those parts of Germany and Switzerland^ in 
which the Reformation had taken place, particular- 
ly to Embden^ Strasburgh^ Zurich^ and Frankfort^ 
in all which countries, no other ordination than that 
by Presbyters existed. I repeat it, none of the Ex- 
iles either settled in Sweden^ Denmark^ or Bohemia^ 

U 2 



334 LETTER VI. 

or were ordained there. Was Dr. Bowden igno- 
rant of this fact? Or, if he knew it, to what shall 
we ascribe his erroneous representation ? But I 
forbear further to expose, what, I trust, was only an 
unintentional error. 

As another proof that the Reformers of the 
Church of England did not hold the excluding,Je/r^ 
divino doctrine of Prelacy which many of their suc- 
cessors in that Church have espoused,! produced a 
public document under the hand of Archbishop 
Grindal^ in which he gave a formal license to a 
Presbyterian minister, as one who had been '^ ad" 
knitted dud ordamed to sacred orders^ and the holy 
ministry^ by the imposition of hands, according to 
the laudable form and rite of the reformed Church 
of Scotland.'^'* 

To take away the force of this concession on the 
part of Archbishop Crindal^ Dr. Bowden^ with 
much zeal, urges several considerations. 

The Jirst is, that this Prelate was not one of the 
Reformers of the Church of England at all ; and 
that it is nothing less than imposition on my rea- 
ders to place him among them. This is truly a 
wonderful assertion ! Has Dr. Bowden ever read 
Strype^^ Life of Grindal? If he has not, I would 
recommend to him to procure and peruse it, before 
be undertakes again to write on this subject. From 
that work he will learn, that Grinded was an active, 
popular Clergyman, and a decisive advocate of the 
Reformation in the reign of Edward VI. ; that he 
was nominated to a Bishopric by that Monarch ; 



Testimony of the ReformerSn 235 

that he was so obnoxious to the Catholic party, on 
account of his exertions in the cause of the Refor- 
mation, as to be compelled to leave the kingdom 
on the accession of Mary to the throne ; that, im- 
mediately on his return, he, with others, was em- 
ployed by Queen Elizabeth in reforming the Litur- 
gy and Offices of the Church ; that he was soon 
made Bishop of London; that he was afterwards 
successively promoted to the Archbishoprics of 
Tork and Canterbury^ in all which stations he sig- 
nalized himself as a Reformer. But " he was not 
Archbishop until the reign of Elizabeth.^^ And 
was no man ever ranked among the Reformers un- 
less he was an Archbishop ? Then Cromner did 
not become a Reformer until some years after he 
had begun to struggle for the purification of the 
Church ; and Ridley^ Latimer^ and Hooper^ to say 
nothing of several others, their illustrious contem- 
poraries, were never Reformers at all ! But this 
plea is really beneath further notice. 

Another mode of gettmg rid of this difficulty, to 
which Dr. Bowden resorts, is to attack the charaC" 
ter of Grindal^ and to endeavour to make it aj)pear, 
that he was so " fanatical and " irregidar^^ that 
his opinion or decision on a subject of this kind 
ought not to be considered as of any weight. I 
am perfectly willing to leave this insinuation to be 
estimated as it deserves, by all who are tolera- 
bly acquainted with the history of the Refor- 
mation in England^ and the agency of the pious 
Archbishop in that glorious struggle. 



235 LETTER VI. 

But, one of the most extraordinary parts of Dr- 
Bowden^s work, is that in which he attempts to 
show that the Reformed Church of Scotland^ as 
first established by Knox and his associates, was 
not Presbyterian but Prelatical in its form. Nay, 
he goes so far as to assert in conformity with the 
misrepresentations of Sage^ Collier^ Spotswood^ and 
Skinner^ that in that church ministerial " parity was 
" disclaimed; that superintendents with Episcopal 
" jurisdiction were established ; and that Presby* 
" terianism had no existence in that country until 
" 1580, twenty years after the reformation was es- 
*^ tablished." The man who can write thus, dis- 
covers a v/ant of information, or a force of preju- 
dice, which renders him a much more proper ob- 
ject of compassion than of resentment. The state- 
ment is not only not true, but diametrically contra- 
ry to the truth, and advanced in direct opposition to 
all authentic testimony. This is so notoriously the 
case, that I did not suppose it possible for any well* 
informed man, at the present day, to give such a 
representation as Dr. Bowden has given. 

The model of the Reformed Church of Scot^ 
land^ as established in 1560, appears in the First 
Book of Discipline^ drawn up by Knox and others. 
In that book, in z\\?c<^\.tr fourth^ the ministry is spo- 
ken of, as consisting of a single order, in the same 
language which has been common among Presby- 
terians ever since ; nor is there the least hint given 
of different ranks or grades of ministers, much less 
of such an hierarchy as Was then established in 



Testbiiony of the Reformers. 237 

England. In the 7th chapter. Ruling Elders and 
Deacons are described, and their duties pointed out j 
the former to assist the minister in the government 
of his flock^ and the latter to take care of the poor. 
And in other parts of the work, the government of 
the Church by Kirk Sessions^ Presbyteries^ and Sy^ 
nods^ is expressly laid down. If this is not the es- 
sence of Presbyteriamsin^ then I know not what is. 
It is true, in that Book, the appointment of ten or 
twelve ministers, under the name of Superintend* 
tnts is recognized and directed. But it is as true, 
that the same Book, declares, that this appointment 
was made, not because Superintendents were consi- 
dered as of divine institution^ or an order to be ob- 
served perpetually in the Kirk ; but because they 
were compelled to resort to some such expedient, 
AT THAT TIME, when thc deficiency of well quali- 
fied Protestant ministers was so great, that if some 
of the more able and pious had not been entrusted 
with much larger districts than single parishes, in 
which to preach the Gospel, to plant Churches, and 
to superintend the general interests of religion, the 
greater part of the country must have been given 
up, either to Popish teachers, or to total ignorance. 
And it is as true, that the powers with which those 
Superintendents were invested, were, in all respects, 
essentially different from those of Prelates. They 
did not confrni ; they did not exclusively ordain ; 
they had no Episcopal consecration; they had none 
of the prerogatives of Prelates ; they were entire- 
ly subject to the Synodical assemblies, consisting of 



238 LETTER VI. 

Ministers and Elders ; they were appointed by men 
who were known to be Presbyterians in principle ; 
who, in the very act of appointing them, disclaimed 
Prelacy as an institution of Christ ; and who gave 
the strongest evidence that they viewed the sub- 
ject in this light, by refusing to make the former 
Bishops, Superintendents^ lest their office should be 
abused, and afterwards degenerate into the " old 
power of the Prelates." In short, the Superinten- 
dents were only the Agents of the Synods, for mana- 
ging the affairs of the Church, in times of peculiar 
difficulty and peril; and whenever these times 
ceased, or rather before, their office was abolished. 
They were no more inconsistent with Presbyterian 
parity, than the practice of appointing Professors of 
Divinity^ whose certificates shall be necessarv to 
the introduction of every candidate into the minis- 
try. Yet such Professors have been appointed in 
every Presbyterian Church that was able to pro- 
vide for their support. 

In 1578^ the Second Book of Discipline was 
agreed upon and published by the General assem- 
bly of the Church of Scotland. In this Book the 
plan of Church Government laid down, is as perfect- 
ly Presbyterian as ever was formed. Nay more, 
it contains a positive declaration that diocesan 
Episcopacy is a *' corruption ;" that a Scriptural 
Bishop is the Pastor of a single Church or Congre- 
gation ; and that the plan of giving to certain mi- 
nisters, under the name of Bishops^ a prelatical au- 
thority over a number of Congregations, and theiv 



Testimony of the Reformers^ 239 

Pastors, is a popish error. It even goes so far as 
to require that all such Bishops then in the kingdom 
renounce their unscriptural title and authority, and 
submit to the Presbyterian order of the Church, or 
that they be deposed from all ecclesiastical office, 
and excommunicated. In all this, the assembly 
was supported by an act of Parliament ; and thus 
Prelacy v/as by law abolished. And yet, " Pres- 
byterianism had no existence in Scotland until 
1580!" I charitably hope that Dr. Boxvden^ when 
he made this representation, had never read either 
the First or Second Book of Discipline^ or the Acts 
of the General Assembly which accompanied those 
public documents. 

It is readily granted that the Reformers in Scot* 
land carried on this glorious work with much diffi- 
culty, and amidst great opposition. It is granted 
that in 1572, and again in 1584, the most violent 
exertions were made, in the former case, by some 
ambitious Noblemen ; and in the latter, by the 
King, to restore Prelacy ; and that in both cases, 
there was a partial and nominal restoration of it for 
a few months, in the same manner as the progress 
of the Reformation was more than once, and griev- 
ously, interrupted in England. But it is notorious, 
that this was in opposition to the views and wishes 
of all the principal Reformers. It is notorious, 
that, even in those intervals in which there were 
nominal Bishops, candidates for the ministry were 
ordained, not by them, but by the Presbyteries. 
And it is equally notorious that, from the first or- 



24© LETTER VI. 

ganization of Presbyterianism in 1560, until it was 
ultimately and permanently established, the great 
body both of the clergy and laity, who manifested 
friendship to the Reformation at all, were decided 
Presbyterians. For the truth of this representa- 
tion, I appeal to the public and accredited docu- 
ments of the Church ; I appeal to Knox^ to Ctilder* 
xvood^ to Woodroxu^ to Crookshank^ to any historian, 
who is not carried away with the violent, I had 
almost said insane, prejudice oiSage^ Spotsxvood^ and 
Collier^ by whom subsequent writers, who ought to 
have known better, have suffered themselves to be 
misled. Even Dr. Heylin^ with all the bitterness 
of his prejudice, in his' History of Preshyterianhnij 
gives a view of the Reformation in Scotland^ which 
I cannot help thinking will excite a blush in Dr. B* 
if he should ever peruse it, — and should remember 
what he himself has written. 

Though Heylin was a violent enemy of every 
thing like Presbytery ; and though he wished to 
make it appear that the first Scottish Reformers did 
not admit of ministerial parity, in the strict sense of 
the word ; yet he was forced to acknowledge that 
they adopted a plan of Church Government, of 
which the " predominant" features were Presbyte- 
rian. And he confesses, further, that even the 
small deviations from the strict Presbyterian model 
which took place, were admitted by Knox on ac- 
count of the then " unsettled state of the Church^ ^^ 

* Misu Presbyter. B. v. § 29, 



Testimony of the Reformers^ 241 

The same historian, in another work, declares, 
more strongly, '*■ Being once settled in an orderly 
" and constant hierarchy, they (the Scotch) held 
" the same, until the Reformation began by Knox ; 
" when he and his Associates, approving the GtiiC' 
" van Platform, took the advantage of the minority 
" of King James VI, to introduce Presbyterian 
" discipline, and suppress the Bispops*.'* 

Accordingly, soon after the first establishment of 

the Reformation in Scotland^ Beza^ whose warm 

attachment to Presbyterianism is universally known, 

WTOte to Kjiox in the following language, " But 

" I would have you, my dear Knox^ and the other 

" brethren, to remember that which is before your 

" eyes ; that as Bishops brought forth the Papacy ; 

" so false Bishops, the relics of Popery, shall 

" bring Epicurism into the world. They that de- 

" sire the good and safety of the Church, let them 

" take heed of this pest ; and seeing you have nut 

'^ that plague to flighty I heartily pray you never to 

** admit again ; although it may seem plausible, 

'' under the pretence of keeping mzzVt/; w^hich pre- 

" tence deceived the ancient Fathers, even the best 

'' of them.f" 

Dr. Bozvden seems to think that, if Bishops h?d 
been the leadmg Reformers in Scotland^ as they 
were in England^ Prelacy w^ould have been retained 
in the former, as well as in the latter. This is only 

* Cosmogr iphie, p. 332. 
t Epst, 79, 

X 



242 LETTER VI. 

saying that even good men, who enjoy high eccle- 
siastical pre-eminence, and corresponding revenues, 
when two plans of Reformation are offered them, 
will be most likely to embrace that which will se- 
cure the continuance of their honours and emolu- 
ments. And does Dr. Bowden really think that 
this affords a solid argument in favour of Prelacy ? 
I cannot possibly suppose a Gentleman of his char- 
acter to be so far gone in absurdity. Besides, the 
Doctor does not appear to know, that three Scotch 
Prelates, viz. the Bishops of Orkney^ Gahuay and 
Caithness^ did embrace the Reformation, and 
became Presbyterian^ or parochial Bishops. And, 
what is still more worthy of notice, it is well 
known, not only that Knox himself was in Episco- 
pal orders, and was a popular preacher in England^ 
in the reign of Edward VI ; but also that a Bishop* 
rick was offered him, which he refused, because he 
considered Prelacy as unlawful ; or as having 
*•' quid com^mine cum Anti-christo^.'*'* According- 
ly, when John Douglass was made Tidchan (or 
nominal) Bishop of St. Andrews^ Knox utterly re- 
fused to ordain him, denouncing anathemas both 
against the giver and the receiver. And, when this 
refusal was imputed to unworthy motives, he pub- 
licly declared, in a Sermon, on the next sabbath, 
^^ I have refused a greater Bishoprick than ever it 
*' was ; and m.ight have had it with the favour of 
^^ greater men than he hath this : but I did and do 

* Fuller's Lives of the Divines, 



Testimony of the Reformers. 243 

'* repine, for discharge of my conscience, that the 
" Church oi Scotland be not subject to that order'^P 

Let us now pass from the Reformers of Greats 
Britain to those of the continent of Europe. 

Dr. Bowden would persuade us that Luther also 
believed in the divine right of diocesan Episcopacy. 
Of this Reformer he speaks in the following terms. 
" As to Luther^ he professes that if the Popish Bi- 
" shops would cease to persecute the Gospel," he 
and those of his communion, " would acknow- 
" ledge them as their fathers, and willingly obey 
*' their authority, which (s^ys ht^ xve find support* 
" ed bij the word of God.^^ Consequently, in his 
*' and their estimation. Episcopacy was an Apos- 
" tolic institution.*' Letter 15. Dr. Bowden has not 
given us the least hint in what part of Luther^s wri- 
tings this declaration is to be foundf ; and 1 shall 
certainly require to see it with my own eyes, and 
to trace its connexion, before it is admitted as an 
authentic testimony of that Reformer's opinion. 
I make this demand with the more confidence, and 
with a deeper conviction of its justice, because, in 
turning over the works of Luther^ I find numerous 
passages, which speak, directly and unequzvocaUy^ 
an opposite language : passages which Dr. Boxvd^i% 

* Calderwood. 

f Really, considering' the severity with which Dr. Boxvdcn 
censures me for not being in all cases sufficiently attentive to 
my references, and his formal and solemn promises to be 
more " scholar like" himself, this omission occui's by far too 
irequentlv ! 



244 LETTER Vf. 

certainly could not have been acquainted with, or 
he would have been ashamed to pen the above ci- 
ted paragraph. 

It were easy to fill several letters with quotations, 
strongly in point, from this illustrious man. The 
fbilowing, however, will suffice. 

In his treatise, De Abroganda Alissa Privata^ 
contained in the second volume of his works*, re- 
marking on Titus I. 5. he makes the following ex- 
plicit declaration. '* Here, if we believe that the 
^' Spirit of Christ spake and directed by Paul^ we 
** must acknowledge that it is a divine appointment, 
" that in every city there be a plurality of Bishops, 
*^ or at least one* It is manifest also, that, by the 
'' same divine authority, he makes Presbyters and 
" Bishops to be one and the same thing ; for he says 
" that Presbyters are to be ordained in every city, 
" if any can be found who are blameless, because 
" a Bishop ought to be blameless." 

In his treatise Adversus Falso Nomi7iatum Or^ 
dinem Eplscoporum^^ Oper, Tom. Ibid. p. 342. re- 
marking on the same passage of Scripture, he 
speaks as follows — '^ Paul writes to Titus that he 

* My edition of Luther^ s works is in seven volumes, folio, 
printed at Wittemberg, 1546—1552. 

j- Whoever will take the trouble to look into this treatise, 
which is expressly written against Bishops^ as a separate and 
pre-eminent order, will find Luther decidedly maintaining 
that a Scriptural Bhhop was nothing' more than a Pastor of a 
single Congregation ; and strongly inveighing against the 
doctrine that Bishops are an order above Pastors, as a Popish 
error. 



Testimony of the Reformers. 245 

'' should ordain Elders in every city. Here, I 
" think, no one can deny that the Aposde repre- 
*' sent3 Bishop and Elder as signifying the same 
" thing. Since he commands Titus to ordain El- 
'" ders in every city ; and because a Bishop ought 
" to be blameless, he calls an Elder by the same 
" title. It is, therefore, plain what Paid means by 
" the term Bishops viz. a man eminently good and 
" upright, of proper age, who hath a virtuous wife, 
'' and children in subjection in the fear of God. 
" He wills such an one to preside over the congre- 
" gation, in the ministry of the word, and the ad-^ 
" ministration of the sacraments. Is there any 
*' one who attends to these words of the Apostle, 
" together with those which precede and follow, 
" so hardened as to deny this sense of them, or to 
" pervert them to another meaning ?'' 

In the same work, page 344, 345. he thus speaks 
— " But let us hear Paul concerning this divine 
^' ordination. For Luke in the 20th chapter of the 
*' Acts of the the Apostles, writes concerning him 
** in this manner. From Miletus^ having sent meS" 
" sengers to Ephesus^ he collected the Elders of the 
" Churchy to xvhom^ -when they had come to him^ he 
" thus said — Take heed to yoursehes and to all the 
** flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you 
** overseers^ £5c. But what new thing is this ? Is 
" Paul insane ? Ephesus was but a single city, and 
" yet Paul openly calls all the Presbyters or El- 
'' ders, by the common style of Bishops* But per*. 
** haps Paid had never read the legends, the inu 

X 2 



246 LETTER VI. 

" serably patched up fables, and the sacred decre« 
'' tals of the Papists ; for how otherwise would he 
" have dared to place a plurahty of Bishops over 
*' one city, and to denominate all the Presbyters of 
** that one t\iy^ Bishops; when they were not all 
"Prelates, nor supported a train of dependents^ 
" and pack horses, but were poor and hunrible 
" men. — But, to be serious, you see plainly that the 
" Apostle Paul calls those alone Bishops who 
*' preach the Gospel to the people, and administer 
*' the Sacraments^ as, in our times, parish ministers 
" and preachers are wont to do. These, therefore, 
*' though they preach the Gospel in small villages 
^* and hamlets, yet, as faithful ministers of the 
*' word, I belitve, beyond all doubt, possess, of 
'' right, the title and name of Bishop." 

A little after, commenting on Philip, i. 1. he 
says — " Behold Paul^ speaking of Philippic which 
*' was a single city, salutes all the believers, togeth- 
^' er with the Bishops. These were, beyond all 
'^ doubt, the Pre^byters^ whom he had been wont 
^' to appoint in every city. This now is the third 
" instance in the writings of Paiil^ in which we see 
" what God and the Holy Spirit hath appointed, 
^^ viz. that those alone^ truly and of rights are to be 
.^' called Bishops vfho have the care of a flock in 
*"' the ministry of the word, the care of the poor, 
*^ and the administration of the Sacraments, as is 
'^^ the case viixh parish ministers in our age." 

In the same work, p. 346. commenting on 
I Peter 5. 1. he says — '^ Here you see that 



Testimony of the Reformers. 247 

*' Peter^ in the same manner as Paul had done, 
'•• uses the terms Presbyter and Bishop to signify 
" the same thing* He represents those as Bishops 
" who teach the people^ and preach the word of 
*' God; and he makes them all of equal power ^ and 
'' forbids them to conduct themselves as if they 
" were lords, or to indulge a spirit of domination 
" over their flocks. He calls himself a fellow^ 
*' presbyter^ plainly teaching, by this expression, 
'' that all parish ministei^Ss and Bishops of cities, 
" were of equal authority among themselves ; that 
^' in what pertained to the office of Bishops no one 
" could claim any superiority over another ; and 
" that he was their fellow-presbyter, having no 
" more power in his own city than others had in 
" theirs, or than every one of them had in his owii 
'> Congregation.'* 

In his Commentary on i Peter 5. 1. Oper. Tom, 
V. p. 481. he thus speaks — " The word Presby^ 
'' ter signifies an Elder. It has the same meaning 
" as the term Senators^ that is, men who on account 
*' of their age, prudence, and experience, bear 
" sway in society. — ^In the same manner Christ 
" calls his ministers, and his senate, whose duty it 
*' is to administer spiritual government, to preach 
" the word, and to watch over the Church? he calls 
*^ them Elders. Wherefore let it not surprise you, 
" if this name is noxv very differently applied ; for 
" of those who are at present called by this name, 
" the Scriptures say nothing. Therefore banish 
" the present order of things from your eyes, and 



248 LETTER VI. 

" you will be able to conceive of the fact as it vva&. 
** When Ptter^ or either of the other Apostles, 
" came to anj^ city where there were Christians, 
** out of the number he chose one or more aged 
" men, of blameless lives, who had wives and chil- 
" dren* and were well acquainted with the Scrip- 
" tures, to be set over the rest. These were cal- 
" led Presbyters^ that is Elders^ whom both Peter 
" and Paul also style Bishops^ that we may know 
" that Bishops and Presbyters were the same.'''* 

Again, in his Commentary on the second verse of 
the same chapter, he says, " I have often said, 
" that if we would wish to have the Christian com- 
" monwealth rightly established, it is necessary 
•' that there be, in every citij^ three or four Bishops^ 
*' who should superintend the Church, and, if any 
" thing should be at any time delinquent or lost, 
^' restore it." 

But this is not all. Luther declared his princi« 
pies on this subject by his j&r<2C^/c^, as well as by his 
xvritings. He was ordained a Presbyter in the 
Romish Church, in the year 1507, in the 24th year 
of his age^'. As a Presbyter, he considered him- 
self as authorized to ordain others to the Gospel 
ministry ; and accordingly, soon after assuming 
the character of a Reformer, he actually did or- 



* Vid. Gerhard^ De Mhiisterio^ p. 147, 148. The same fact 
is also attested by Zanchius. In iv. Pr<ecep, p. 774. Gerhard, 
who lived not lon,^ after JMther, expressly asserts that he was 
ordained a Presbyter, with the imposition of hands, in the 
year above mentioned. 



Testirnonij of the Reformers. 249 

dam*. Nay^ he went a step further. Though a 
firm believer in the doctrine of the primitive parity 
of ministers, he seems to have considered it as 72Gt 
imiawful to have diocesan Bishops or Superintend 
dents in the Church, when either the form of the 
civil government, or the habits or wishes of the 
people rendered it desirable ; always, however, 
placing their appointment on the ground of human 
expediency alone. Accordingly, in the year 1542, 
when an Episcopal seat within the electorate of 
Saxony became vacant, Luther^ at the request 
of the Elector, though himself nothing more than 
a Presbyter, consecrated Amsdorff^ Bishop of that 
diocesej. But if Luther had believed in ^' the 
Apostolic institution of diocesan Episcopacy," as 
Dr. Bowden tells us he did, could he have acted 
thus I It is not possible. It would have been a 
grossness of inconsistency and dishonesty with 
which that holy Reform,er was never charged. 

Nor did Luther abandon cither his principles or 
his practice, on this subject^ to his last hour. This 
appears from the following testimony of his biogra- 
pher, concerning what occurred a few days before 
his death. " From the 29th day of January till the 
^^ 17th day of Februar}', he was continually occu- 
^' pied about the matters of concord and agreement 
'^ of the aforesaid noble princes, bringing it unto a 
" most godly conclusion. And besides his great 

* Mekhlor Adavi^ 129= 
t Ibid, 150. 



250 LETTER VI. 

" labour In so necessary a cause, he preached in 
*' the mean time, four worthy sermons, and two 
" times communicated with the Christian Church 
•* there, in the holy Supper of the Lord ; and in 
" the latter communion, which was on Sunday, he 
^' ordained two ministers of the xvord of God^ after 
" the Apostles'* manner^.'^'' This great Reformer, 
then, in the solemn anticipation of death, and when 
he expected, in a few days, to appear before his 
eternal Judge, still claimed and exercised the right 
of ordaining ministers, as he had done for near 
thirty years ; and what is more, his biographers, 
who were eminent divines of the Lutheran denomi- 
nation, and Luther'^s most intimate friends, declare, 
that, in their judgment, as well as that of their illus- 
trious chief, ordination by a Presbyter was in con- 
formity with ^^ the Apostles' manner/' 

Nor did Luther stand alone, among the Church- 
es of his denomination, in maintaining the primitive 
parity of Gospel ministers. This is evident from 
the Confessions^ and other ecclesiastical documents, 
which were early set forth, and which have been 
ever since received by those Churches. 

Among the standards of the Lutheran Churches, 
the Augustan Confession holds the first rank. It 
was drawn up by Melancthon^ approved by Luther^ 

* *' The True History of the Christian Depart inir of the 
^'' jRev. Dr. Martin Luther ; collected by Justus yonas^ Mi- 
'* chael Celius, and Joannes Aurfaber, i^hich ivere present 
" thereat.'' 



^restimony of the Reformers. 251 

and formally presented to the Emperor Charles V, 
by those Reformers, and their adherents, in the 
year 1530, as a summary of the doctrines received 
by them. In this celebrated Confession there is a 
reference to a charge brought against the Lutherans 
by the Papists^ that they had abolished the order of 
Bishops^ as a superior grade of Clergy. The fact 
is not denied^ but defended; and that on the ground 
that it was necessary to obey God rather than man ; 
and to be guided by Scripture rather than human 
traditions. It is observable, also, that in this Con^ 
fession^ the preaching of the Gospel, and the ad- 
ministration of the Sacraments, are represented as 
the highest functions of the ministry, and the right 
to perform these as including all other ministe- 
rial power^. 

The work next in authority, as a compend of 
Lutheran doctrine, is the famous Defence of the 
Augustan. Confession^ composed by Melancthon^ in 
the year 1530; presented to the Emperor at Augs* 
burg^ the same year ; acknowledged as the Creed of 
the Protestants there assembled ; published in 1531, 
and solemly adopted as one of the standards of the 
Lutheran Church, by her principal civil and eccle- 
siastical guides of that day. — In the 7th chapter of 
this Defence^ the following passage is found. Speak- 
ing oi Episcopacy^ they say, '^ Concerning this point, 
" we have often declared, in the present conven- 
" tion, that we earnestly desire to retain the eccle- 

* See the article on Meekiiastical Ponxer thvonghoxd 



252 LETTER VI. 

*' siastkal polity^ and those ^;W^^ which are estab^ 
^^ lished in the Church, although brought in by hu- 
" mail authority. For we know that this form of 
^^ ecclesiastical discipline, as it is described in the 
*^ ancient Canons, was introduced by the Fathers 
'' of the Church with good and useful counsel.*' 
— Here is one of the strongest testimonies ima- 
ginable in favour of the doctrine of primitive pari- 
ty. In a Confession of Faith, drawn up and sub- 
scribed by some of the most eminently pious and 
learned Divines that ever lived,while they express a 
strong predilection in favour of that Episcopal re- 
gimen which they found in the Church, and which 
had been long established ; they still declare, that 
they consider it as " brought in by human authori- 
ty'^ — and as resting on no other ground than '* the 
good and useful counsel of their fathers." 

The work next in authority in the Lutheran 
Churches, is the famous collection of Articles drawn 
up and adopted at Smalkald^ in 1537. They were 
composed by Luther^ subscribed by him, and also 
by Melancthon^ Jonas^ Bugenhagius^ Myconius^ 
and many other illustrious Lutheran Divines ; and 
solemnly acknowledged, at a general meeting of 
Protestants, in the city whose name they bear, 
as containing a summary of their theological and 
ecclesiastical prmciples. In those articles, the fol- 
lowing declarations are found. " It is clear, even 
*^ from the confession of our adversaries, that this 
" power, (to wit of preaching, dispensing the Sacra- 
" ments, excommunication, and absolution,) is 



Xestimony of the Reformers. 253 

" common to all that are set over the Churches, 
" whether they be called Pastors, Presbyters, or 
^' Bishops. Wherefore Jerome plainly affirms, 
" that there is no difference between a Bishop and 
" a Presbyter ; but that every Pastor is a Bishop* 
" Here Jerome teaches that the distinction of de- 
" grees between a Bishop, and a Presbyter or Pas- 
'' tor, was only appointed by human authority ; and 
'' the thing itself imports no less ; for on both 
" Bishop and Presbyter is laid the same duty, and 
" the same charge. Only Urdination in aftfr 
" TIMES made the difference between Bishop and 
*' Pastor. By divine right there is no difference 
^' between them^." 

The last public document of the Lutheran Church, 
which I shall quote, as supporting our doctrine, is a 
Syllabus of Controverted Points^ digested out of the 
received Creeds and Confessions of that Church, 
and published with those Creeds and Confessions 
by authority. In chapter 18. ^4. of this work, we 
find the following exphcit declaration. " Ordinal 
" tion to the work of the ministry is necessary in 
" a Church at liberty ; but this act does not belong 
" to Bishops aione^ nor can it with propriety be 
*■* called a sacrament. We hold this in opposition 
" to the Papists^ and also to certain English Epis^ 
^' copalians^ as Carleton^ Hcdl^ snd Bilson^ who dis- 

* Articuli S^nalcaldici ChrisUan<e Doctrhiae — Scripii a B, 
Martino Luthero, Anno ISSr— Art. Be Potentate et yurudic^ 
^ionc Episcoporwtn, 

Y 



^^4f LETTER VI, 

" tinguish between Presbyters and Bishops as to 
'^ the point of ordinatiGn^J*^ 

But we may go much further. Almost all the 
public Confessions which were drawn up and adop- 
ted at the era of the Reformation, contain the same 
doctrine, and speak the same language. Mr. How 
indeed declares, that *^ the universal language at 
the time of the Reformation," was in favour of the 
Apostolical institution of Prelacy, and offering no 
other plea but that of necessity for establishing a 
different system of ecclesiastical order. Dr. Bow'- 
den makes, in substance, the same assertion. What 
these gendemen will think of themselves, and of 
their representation, after perusing the following 
extracts, is not for me to decide. 

In the Confession of Saxony^ drawn up in 1551^ 
by Melancthon^ and subscribed by all the Saxon 
Churches, the following passages are found. Art. 
11. " We do also retain in our Churches the pub- 
>' lie rite of ordination, whereby the ministry of die 
/' Gospel is commended to those that are truly 
" chosen, whose manners and doctrine we do first 
" thoroughly examine. These things pertain to 
" the ministry, — to teach the Gospel; to administer 
*' the Sacraments ; to give absolution to them that 
^' ask it, and do not persevere in manifest offences ; 
^* to ordain ministers of the Gospel, being rightly 

* Appendix ad Libros Ecclesice Lutherans Symbolicos, &c, 
p. 195. 



Testimony of the Reformers. ^^^ 

" called and examined J to exercise the judgment 
*' of the Church after a lawful manner, upon those 
*' who are guilty of manifest crimes in manners or 
*^ in doctrine ; and to pronounce the sentence of ex- 
^* communication against them that are stubborn, 
" and again to absolve and pardon them that do 
'" repent. That these things may be done order- 
" ly, there be also Consistories appointed in our 
'' Churches'^:' 

The Confession of Wirtemberg\ drav\m up in 
1552, by order of the Duke of F/irtemberg^ and 
presented by his ambassadors to the Council of 
Treaty as a specimen of Protestant doctrine, con- 
tains the following declarations. Art. 20. '^ Christ, 
*' in his Church, hath instituted Ministers who 
" should preach his Gospel, and administer the Sa- 
" craments. Neither is it to be permitted to 
" every one to usurp a public ministry in the 
" Church, without a lawful calling. Paul writeth 
*' that a Bishop ought to be apt to teach ; and Je^ 
*' rome teacheth that a Priest and a Bishop are all 
" one. Therefore it is evident, that except a Priest 
" be ordained in the Church to the ministry of 
" teaching, he cannot rightly take unto him neither 
" the name of a Priest, nor the name of a Bi- 
" shopf." 

The French Confession^ formed in 1559, and 
subscribed by all the Pastors of the Protescant 

* Harmony of Confessions. Sect. 10. 
t Ibid. Sect. 11. 



^56 LETTER VI* 

Churches in that kingdom, contains the following 
explicit declarations. Art. 29. '' We believe that 
" this true Church ought to be governed by that 
^' regiment or discipline, vihich our Lord Jesus 
" Christ hath established, to wit, so that there be 
" in it Pastors^ Eiders^ and Deacons^ that the pit* 
" rity of doctrine may be YQi^imQd^vices suppressed^ 
'^ the poor^ and others that be in misery, according 
" to their necessity, may be provided for; and 
" that there may be holy meetings, for the edify- 
" ing both of small and great." Art. SO. " We 
*' believe that all true Pastors, in what place soever 
*' they be placed, have the same and equal authori- 
" ty given unto them, under Jesus Christ, the only 
" Head, and the chief and alone universal Bishop ; 
" and that, therefore, it is not lawful for any Church 
" to challenge unto itself dominion or sovereignty 
" over any other Church^.'' 

The Belgic Confession^ formed in 1566, contains 
the following explicit and decisive articles. Art 30. 
" We believe, that this Church ought to be ruled 
'^ and governed by that spiritual regiment, which 
" God himself hath delivered in his word, so that 
*^ there be placed in it Pastors and Ministers^ pure- 
" ly to preach, and righdy to administer the holy 
" Sacraments — That there be also in it Seniors (or 
" Elders) and Deacons^ of whom the Senate 
" of the Church might consist, that, by these 
" means, true Religion might be preserved, 

• JIann. of Co7ifessioj:s, Sect, 11. 



Testimony of the Reformers. 237 

" and sincere doctrine in every place retained and 
" spread abroad ; that vicious and wicked men 
" might, after a spiritual manner, be rebuked, 
" amended, and as it were by the bridle of disci- 
" pline kept within their compass ; that the poor 
" in like manner, and those that be afflicted, may 
" be relieved, either with aid or comfort, accord- 
" ing to the several necessities of every one. For 
" then shall all things in the Church be done in 
^' due and convenient order, when faithful and 
^^ godly men are chosen to have the government of 
" the same, even as St. Paul hath prescribed in 
" I T/W%3^andin Titus i:' Art. 31. " We 
*' believe that the Ministers^ Elders^ and Deacons, 
'* ought to be called to those their functions, and 
" by the lawful election of the Church to be ad- 
" vanced into those rooms, earnest prayer being 
^' made unto God, and after the order and manner 
" which is set down unto us in the word of God. 
" This especially every one ought to take diligent 
" heed of, that he do not by unlawful means thrust 
" himself into those offices. For every one must 
" wait until he be called of God himself, that he 
" may have a certain testimony of his vocation, 
** and may know that it is from the Lord. Yet iri 
" what place of the world soever the ministers of 
" the word of God do keep, they have all of them 
*^ the same and equal power and authority ; being 
" all of them equally the ministers of Christ, the 
*' only universal Bishop and Head of the Church*." 

* Murmony of Confessions, Sect. 11. 

Y 2 



258 LETTER VI. 

The second Helvetic Confession was drawn li^ 
by the Pastors of Zurich^ in the year 1566, and 
subscribed not only by themselves, but also by the 
Churches of Geneva^ Hungary^ and Scotland. In 
the eighteenth chapter of that Confession, which is 
entitled, Of the Ministers of the Churchy their In- 
stitution and Offices^ are found the following decla- 
rations — " The Apostles of Christ do term all 
" those which believe in Christ, Priests^ but not in 
" regard of their ministry, but because all the 
" faithful, being made Kings ^nd Priests by Christ, 
" may offer up spiritual sacrifices unto God. The 
" Ministry^ then, and Priesthood are things far 
'^ different one from the other. For priesthood, 
" as we said even now, is common to all Christians, 
^^ so is not the ministry. And we have not taken 
*' away the ministry from the Church, because we 
^' have thrust the Popish priesthood out of the 
" Church of Christ. For surely in the New Co- 
" venant of Christ, there is no longer any such 
*' Priesthood as was in the ancient Church of the 
^^ Jexvs^ which had an external anointing, holy gar- 
** ments, and very many ceremonies, -which were 
*' J%?/r^5 and types of Ciirist^ who by his coming, 
*' fulfilled and abolished them. And he himself re- 
" maineth the only Priest forever ; and we do not 
" communicate the name of Priest to any of the 
" ministers, lest we should detract any thing from 
** Christ. Now the power that is given to the mi- 
*' nisters of the Church is the same xnd alike in 
*' all : and, in the beginning, the Bishops or Elders^ 



Testimony of the Reforraers. 259 

^' did, with a common consent and labour, govern 
*' the Church. No man lifted up himself above 
" another; none usurped greater authority or 
" power over his fellow Bishops ; for they remem- 
" bered the words of the Lord, He which -will be 
*' the chief est among you^ let hiin be your servant. 
" They kept in themselves by humility, and did 
*' mutually aid one another in the government and 
*' preservation of the Church. Notwithstanding 
'^ for orders' sake, some one of the ministers called 
" the Assembly together, propounded unto the As- 
" sembly the matters to be consulted of, gathered 
'' together the voices or sentences of the rest, and, 
" to be brief, as much as lay in him, provided that 
" there might arise no confusion. So did Saint 
" Peter ^ as we read in the Acts ; who yet, for all 
" that, was neither above the rest, nor had greater 
'^ authority than the rest. Very true, therefore, is 
" that saying of Cyprian^ the Martyr, in his book 
*' De ShnpL Cler. — The same doubtless were the rest 
" of the Apostles that Peter was^ having an equal 
*' felloxvship with hi?n both in honour and poxver ; 
" but the beginning thereof proceedeth J rom unity ^ 
** to signify unto us that there is but one Churchy — 
*' Saint Jerome^ upon the Epistle of" Paul to Titus^ 
*' hath a saying not much unlike this — Before that 
*' by the instinct of the Devil there was partaking 
*' in rchgion^ the Churches were governed by the 
*' common advice of the Presbyters ; but after that 
*' every one thought^ that those whom he baptized 
*^ were his own and not Chrisfsy it was decreed 



^60 LETTEJa VI. 

" that one of the Presbyters should be chosen and set 
'^ over the rest^ xvho should have the care of the 
" whole Church laid upon him^ and by xohose means 
" all schism should be removed. Yet Jerome doth 
" not avouch this as an order set down of God: for 
" straightway after, he addeth — Even as^ saith he, 
" the Presbyters knexv by the continual custom of 
" the Churchy that they were subject to hi?7i that is 
" set over thefu — So the Bishops must know that they 
" are above the Presbyter^^ rather by custom^ than 
** by the prescript rule of God^s truth ; and they 
" should have the government of the Church in com- 
" mon with them. Thus far Jerome. Now there- 
*' fore no man can forbid by any right, that we 
*l may return to the old appointment of God, and 
'' rather receive that, dian the custom devised by 
" men. — Furthermore, no man ought to usurp the 
^* honour of the ecclesiastical ministry, that is to 
" say, greedily to pluck it to him by bribes, or any 
" evil shifts, or of his own accord. But let the 
** ministers of the Church be called and chosen by 
*■' a lawful and ecclesiastical election and vocation. 
" — And those which are chosen, let them be or» 
" dained of the Elders^ -with public prayer^ and lay* 
*'^ ing on of hands. We do condemn all these 
" which run of their own accord, being neither 
" chosen, sent, nor ordained*." 

The Confession of Bohemia^ drawn up about 1573, 
in chapter 9th, contains the following passage — 

* Hannony of Confessions^ Sect. 11. 



Testimony of the Reformers. -261 

^* Ministers ought not of their own accord to press 
" forward in that calling ; but ought, according to 
" the example of the Lord and the Apostles, to be 
" lawfully appointed and ordained thereunto. And 
" again, these ought to be proved and tried by ex- 
*' amination, and so afterwards, prayers and fas- 
" tings being made, they may be confirmed or ap* 
*' proved of the Elders^ by laying on of hands.'^^-^ 
Chapter 14. ** The power of the keys is committed 
" to the Church of Christ, and to the ministers 
"thereof unto the end of the world; that they 
" should not only, by preaching, publish the holy 
" Gospel, although they should do this especially, 
*' that is, should show forth that word of true com- 
" fort, and the joyful message of peace, and new 
*' tidings of that favour which God offereth ; but 
" also that, to the believing and unbelieving, they 
*' should publicly or privately denounce or make 
** known, to them his favour, to these his wrath, 
" and that to all in general, or to every one in par- 
*' ticular, that they may wisely receive some into 
** the house of God, to the communion of saints, 
" and drive some out from thence, and may so, 
" through the performance of their ministry, hold in 
** their hand the sceptre of Christ his kingdom, 
*' and use the same to the government of Christ 
" his sheep. And all these things are done by the 
** faithful shepherds of souls in the Lord's stead, 
" not doing this of themselves, but upon Christ his 
" commandment; not by their own and proper 
^' virtue, but by Christ's, and by the efficacy of his 



262 LETTER VI* 

" word and sacraments, as those that are stewards 

•* and dispensers of the mysteries of God, and mi- 

" nisters only. In the administration of which 

" things they may use some seemly and indifferent 

" ceremonies, that is, which are no way necessa- 

^' ry, such as laying on hands, or reaching out the 

" right hand ; or else they may omit them. — This 

" power of his sceptre and spirit hath the Lord 

** granted and delivered to the holy Apostles, and 

** in them to all ministers of Churches lawfully or^ 

" dained^ that they might exercise in his stead : 

" and he granted it to them by these words, As the 

'* Father hath sent 7ne^ so do I send you also. By 

•' this we may understand that these keys, or this 

** divine function of the Lord's, is committed and 

** granted to those that haVe the charge of souls, 

" and to each several ecclesiastical society*, 

" whether small or great. Moreover, every 

*' Christian, so often as he needeth these keys of 

*' the Lord, ought to require them particularly for 

" himself of the Pastors of souls of that Church or 

" fellowship, of which himself is a part, and to 

*' which he belongeth ; and that he use them with 

" full confidence, no otherwise than if he had re- 

" ceived them of Christ himself, seeing that Christ 

" hath delivered them unto the Pastors. This is 

• This Is explained, by a note on the article, in the following 
words — ** That is to Frabyteries or Consistories, which stand 
** of Pastors and Elders ; and unto whom properly the dis- 
** pensing" and ordering" of the keys, and ecclesiastical cen- 
'^ sures do belong-." 



Testhnony of the Reformers, 263 

" also taught and handled, that the Priests ought 
" not to use these keys of the Lord, otherwise than 
" according to the meaning and will of Christ, ex- 
pressed in his word^.*' 



4( 



From public Confessions drawn up by the Refor- 
mers, let us descend to individual opinions express- 
ed by those illustrious Witnesses for the truth, in 
different countries. Of these the following speci- 
men \s\\\ be sufficient. 

Ursinus^ a learned German Divine, contemporary 
with Luther and Alelancthon^ speaks the same lan- 
guage. " Ministers," says he, '^ are either imme* 
'^ diately called ofGod^ or mediately through the in- 
" strumentality of the Church. Of the former 
" class, were Prophets and Apostles. Of the latter 
'' class there are five kinds, viz. Evangelists^ Bi- 
" shops ^ or Pastors^ Teachers^ Ruling Elders^ and 
" Deacons. Evangelists are ministers appointed 
" to go forth and preach the Gospel to a number 
" of Churches. Bishops are ministers ordained to 
" preach the word of God, and administer the sa- 
^' craments, in particular Churches. Teachers are 
" ministers appointed merely to fulfil the function 
" of teaching in particular Churches. Ruling EU 
'' ders are ministers elected by the voice of the 
" Church, to assist in conducting discipline^ and to 
'^ order a variety of necessary matters in the 
^•^ Church. Deacons are ministers elected by the 

* Harmony of Confessions y Sect. 11. 



264 LETTER VI. 

" Church, to take care of the poor ^ and to distribute 
'' alms'^:' 

The very learned Musculus^ also of Germany^'SL 
Reformer contemporary with Luther^ and who em- 
braced his principles, having proved from Acts 20. 
Phillip. I. 1. Titus i. 5. and i Peter v. 1. that, in 
the Apostles' times a Bishop and Presbyter were 
all one^ adds as follows : " But after the Apostles' 
*^ times, when, amongst the Elders of the Church, 
" (as Jerome saith,) schisms arose, and, as I verily 
^* think, they began to strive for the pre-eminence 
" bv little and little, they began to choose one 
" out of the number of the Elders, who was placed 
^^ above the rest, in a higher degree, and called Bi- 
" shop. But whether that device of man profited 
*^ the Church or no, those who lived in succeeding 
" times could better judge, than when it first be- 
gan. If feronie had seen as much as those who 
*' came after him, he would, no doubt, have con- 
" eluded that this w^as never brought in to take 
^' away schism, but was a project of the Devil to 
*' w^aste and destroy the primitive ministry^ appoin- 
" ted for feeding the Lord's flock.'' Again, he 
declares, " Whence it evidently appears that, in the 
*' times of the Apostles, Elders^ Pastors^ and Bi^ 
*' shops were one and the same in God's Church." 
** — It is beyond all dispute, that the first and 
'' Apostolic Church, was, by the Apostles so con- 
" stituted, that the Elders of the Church did ex-r 

* Ursln. Corpus DoctruKe, Par. iii. p. T2h 



a 



Teathnony of the Reformers. 265 

^^ ercise a common Episcopal care over the Lord s 
^' flock, and enjoyed the same function of teaching 
" and governing, and were therein subject to no 
" head or president^." 

Zsegedin, an eminent Lutheran divine oi Hunga- 
ry^ contemporary with Luther and Cahin^ delivers, 
in substance, the same doctrine. The following 
quotations are decisive, " May one Pastor pre- 
*' side over other pastors ? The practice, indeed, 
" hath obtained that Presbyters should preside^ 
" each one in his own College, and that this per- 
** son alone should be called Bishop. This, hovr- 
*' ever, arose from human custom^ and is by no 
*' means supported by the authority of Scripture. 
*•' And from perverting the signification of a word 
'* this evil hath arisen, that, as if all Presbyters 
'^ were not Colleagues^ and called to the same fine- 
'^ t'lon^ one, under the pretext of a new title, arroga- 
" ted to himself a dominion over othersf." Again, 
" hence learn that all Pastors are equal both in 
" their vocation ^nd function; and that there is no 
*' prelatical tyranny constituted. It is necessary, 
" indeed, that, among brethren, there should be 
" some one to convene the college, to state the bu- 
'' siness, and, when it is necessary, to write and 
^' speak in the name of the college. But this per- 
" son, to avoid the odium oi prelatical tyranny ^ mav 
*^ be called Superintendent. The power of Super- 



* Loci Commwies De offic. Minist. p. 360 — 362. 
t Loci Communes, p. 197. Fol. Qiiint. Basil. 160S. 

z 



266 LETTER VI. 

" intendents ought to be temporary and definite, 
" not perpetiial^^^^ Again, *^ Is the tide of Bi- 
^' shop common to all ministers of the word ? Yes^ 
" certainly. For Faul^ in the first chapter of the 
" Epistle to the Philippians^ represents many Bi^ 
" shops as belonging to one Church. The titles 
*^ Bishops Pastor^ Presbytei'^ are, therefore, sijnony* 
'^ mous* Bishop is a term expressive of duty and 
'^ care^ not of dignkyJ^' — Again, " The Popish 
*''^ Bishops are false Bishops ; not successors of the 
'' Apostles^hwioi Balaam^crutX^ heretical, enemies 
" of Christ, who esteem the Episcopate on ac- 
^'' count of its introducing them to great riches. 
^' While Paid comprehends under the name of Bi- 
'^ shop, all Pastors^ the Papists will have it that 
'* none is to be held as a Bishop but the one who 
'' is chosen by the college to preside over his breth- 
'' rent-*' 

The learned yunius^ an eminent Dutch profes- 
sor of divinity, who lived at the commencement 
of the Reformation in Holland^ and who was, of 
course, nearly contemporary with Ltither\^ wrote 
very fully and explicitly in support of Presbyterian 
principles. In his work entitled Ecclesiastki^ he 
decidedly, and with great learning, maintains, that 

* Loci Ccnimunes, p. 197. 

i Ibid. 202. 

i Of this illustrious Reformer, it is related, tliatlie preacli- 
ed in the city of Antnuerp at midnight, with no other light 
than that \shich was produced by the flames of burning' 
laaartvrs. 



• Testimony of the Reformers* 267 

Pastors, Ruling Elders, and Deacons, are the only 
three scriptural orders of Church officers; that 
Pastors, or ministers of the \v%>rd and sacraments, are 
the highest order, and, of course, are invested with 
the power of ordaining ; that the second class are 
men of distinguished piety and prudence, chosen 
from among the members of the Church, to assist 
the Pastor in the go'oernment of the Church ; and 
that the Deacons are appointed to collect and dis* 
tribute the alms of the Church. He affirms that 
these three orders are set forth in Scripture, and 
existed in the primitive Church. He declares that 
ti scriptural Bishop was the Pastor of a single Con- 
gregation ; and that giving this title, by way of 
eminence, to one of the Pastors in a city or district, 
was a practice introduced after the time of the 
Apostles, and is to be be considered as a departure 
from the primitive model^. 

The same writer, in his Animadversions on Car- 
dinal Bellarmine^ is still more pointed and positive 
against the claims of diocesan Episcopacy, and in 
iuvcur of the Presbyterian doctrine of parity. — Ic 
is really amusing to tj'ace the Popish Cardinal 
through all his reasonings and cavils, and to observe 
what a remarkable coincidence there is between 
him and Dr. Bozvden ; and it is no less worthy of 
notice that Junius^ though he wrote nearly two 
hundred and fifty years ago, and, of course, many 



* KcchnasticU sive de Kat. et A^iyninlstrat. EccksLe, &c. 
Uh. ij. C^p. 2; 5, 4. 



268 



LETTER Vr. 



years before the Synod of Dort, argues as uniforoi- 
ly and strongly in favour of Presbyterian principks^ 
as any champion of Pivsbytery that ever appeared. 
I cannot forbear particularly to observe, that Bel- 
larmine turns in every direction, and strains every 
nerve, to set aside the testimony of Jtrome; and 
for this purpose, in almost every instance, employs 
exactly the same arguments and the same subter- 
fuges with Dr. Boxvden : While Junius pronoun- 
ces and proves his arguments to be futile, and his 
subterfuges unavailing, and the testimony of that 
celebrated Father to be precisely what the friends 
of parity have ever considered it'^'. 

The learned Sadeel^ a French Protestant Divine, 
contemporary with Calvin and Beza^ has frequendy 
been represented by Episcopal virriters, as friend- 
ly to their claims, and even as acknowledging 
the apostolical institution of Episcopacy. What 
the opinions of this Reformer really were, will ap- 
pear from the following quotations. In answer to 
a learned Popish Doctor, who, like some of our 
zealous Episcopalians, warmly contended that the 
power of ordination was confined to diocesan Bi- 
shops, he declares, " This Sorlmine Doctor objects, 
"- that our ministers are only Presbyters^ and not 
" Bishops ; and therefore could not ordain other 
" ministers, since only Bishops have a right to or- 
'' dain. That this opinion i^ false ^ I shall imme- 

* Fr, yimii Animadversloncs in Bellarm^ Controv. v. I/jb* 
I. Cap. 5, 6, T^ 



ii 



♦ TestimGnif of the Reformers. 269 

^^ diatcly shuw. It is evident, from the word of 
God, that Bishop and Presbyter are the same, 
^* This appears from Titus i. 5, from Acts xx, and 
'' from Philip i. 1. But the Doctor will reply, 
*■' that the names are indeed used interchangeably 
^* in the passages above stated ; but that the offices 
*' themselves are carefully distinguished in Scrip- 
^' ture. But, I answer, when the Presbyters are 
*' called Bishops^ the Aposde is, in slich places, 
" treating not of the names and tiites only, but of 
" the ofRce and function itself. For when he ex- 
" horts the Presbyters of Ephesus to the right ex- 
" ercise of their office, he adds this reason, that 
" the Holy Ghost had constituted them Bishops; 
" and, therefore, he says, not that they were only 
" called so i but that they were, in very deed, con- 
^' stituted such Bishops. So that the answer touch- 
" ing the confusion of names is quite overthrown. 
" — But the Sorbonne Doctor tells us that Paul cH' 
^' joins Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man^ 
*' and, therefore, none but Timothy had the right 
*' of ordination. But this conclusion is utterly 
*' without foundation ; for Ti;72c?f//«/ is also enjoined 
^' to reject fables, and to give attendance to read- 
" ing, exhortation, and doctrine, &c. Did Timo^ 
*"* thy^ therefore, arrogate all these things to him- 
" self alone ? Did they not belong to Presbyter Sy 
" whoyby PauPs testimony, laboured in the word 
^' and doctrine ? Timothf^ episcopacy at Ephesus 
*' cannot be made good by any testimony of Scrip- 
" turc." Again^ — *^ If we allow to Presbyters the 

Z 2 



2T0 LETTER VI. 

'' right to preach the Gospel, to administer Bap* 
*"* tism, and to celebrate the Lord^s Sapper, upon 
^^ what imaginable ground can we deny them the 
'^ right to ardain ? Therefore such as exclude 
'^ Presbyters from the right to ordain, show them- 
''^ selves to be grossly ignorant both of the nature 
^^' of ordinc'ulon, and of ihe Pastoral affice." And 
in support of all thrs reasoning, and much more, 
which I am compelled to omit, he quotes the fa- 
mous testimony of yc?;'<?;?2^, and pronounces it to be 
conclusive. He quotes also Irena:us^ Ambrose^ and 
Aicgusthie^ as giving testimony which co-incides 
with that of yerome ; ar^l adds, ^' I cite these, be- 
'^ cause the Papists esteem the authority of the 
^^ Fathers, more than that of plain declarations of 
^-^ Scripture*'^'-*'- 

But, in adcVuian to all this, there is testimony 
of a different kind. It not only appears, from the 
public Confessiaiis^ and individual declarations^ 
which have been quoted, that the Apostolical insti- 
tution of ministeriai parity was believed by the 
Lutheran^ as well as the Reformed Churches ,• but 
it is evident that they were considered by others as 
having avowed their belief in that docrine. 

The famous Cardinal Bellarmine certainly under- 
stood the Protestants of his day generally to hold 
the equality of Bishops and Presbyters by divine 

* Oper. Thcol. Tom. i. Tract. Dc Legit ima Vocatiofie Piis- 
torum EcdesiiS. p. 65— 6r. 



Testimony of the Reformers. 2?1 

right* '^ If," saith he, " Episcopacy be a sacra- 
'^ ment distinct from the Presbyterate, it will be 
^^ easy to prove that a Bishop is, both in order and 
'' jurisdiction, greater than a Presbyter, by divine 
'' right; which now, all the hejietics (the Pro- 
*' testards) deny^." De Sacramento Ordinis^ Cap. 5. 
And in his work, De Clericis^ he makes a similar 
declaration in terms equally express. For having 
asserted that a Bishop is superior to a Presbyter, 
by divine right, both with respect to order and ju- 
risdiction, he ascribes the contrary doctrhie to 
Aerius^ to Wkkiiffe^ to the Lutherans^ and the CaU 
■jinists. Cap. 14. 

Crakenthorp^ a learned divine of the church of 
England^ contemporary with Bellarminc^ speaking 
of Luther^ and the other Reformers on the continent 
of JSz/rc/^, expresses himself in the following terms. 
" They have not, I know, Bishops^ distinct from 
^' Presbyters^ and superior to them ; but at the same 
" time, they do not teach, as Aerius did, that minis- 
*•' terial imparity is contrary to the word of God. 
" They do not condemn it. They hold that, by 
'^ the word of God, and divine right, either parity, 
'^ or imparity is lawful ; and that every Church 

* Bellarm'me \vas contemporary with Archbishop Whit' 
gift. It seems that, at that time, the Cardinal knew of no 
Trotestants who held to the divine right of Preh'icy. It is evi- 
dent, therefore, that this doctrine was th.en either ickoUy uii- 
hioivn in Erigland, or n^aintained by so Jtiv, tJjat they were 
not considcied as worthy of being recognized as an Qxcep- 
tion. 



272 LETTER VI. 

*' has authority or power to admit either the one or 
^' the other as it thinks best^/' 

On these documents I shall not trouble you with 
many remarks. They speak a language so uni- 
form, decided, and conclusive, that it can neither 
be mistaken nor resisted. And they establish, be- 
yond the possibility of dispute, that all the leading 
Reformers were firm believers in the primitive 
parity of ministers. That this was the opinion of 
Luther, Melanctho7i'\, and all the principal di- 
vines of their communion, has been abundantly 
proved. That Cabin was uniformly of the same 
opinion, will be demonstrated in the next Letter. 
That the Saxon, Helvetic, French, Belgic, and Bo- 
hemian Confessions, all declare in favour of this 

* Dcfensio Ecclcslce Anglicance. Cap. 42. Sect. 6. 

f It has been said that Melancthon, on a certain occasion, 
expressed a willingness to submit to the power of Prelates, 
provided they w^ould become patrons of the Reformation. This 
is true. It is also true, that the same pious and amiable, but too 
accommodating, Melancthon, when he subscribed the famous 
Smalkald Articles^ annexed to his subscription a declaration, 
(which is still to be seen,) that he was willing to allow the 
Fope a superiority over all other Bishops, for the sake of the 
peace of the church ; provided he would aid in reforming 
the church. And it is as true as either, that by these con- 
cessions, Melajicthon gave great offence to the Protestants of 
his own communion, and complains in one of his letters, of 
the resentment which they manifested against him on this 
account. See Melancthon^s Epistles, near the beginning of 
the volume. Having mislaid the notes which I made, at the 
time of perusing the passage, I am not able, at present, to 
make a more p^articular reference. 



Testimony of the Reformers. 27'3 

doctrine, as received and practised in the Apostolic 
age, you have seen with your own eyes. And, 
finally, that Cranmer and his associates, who com- 
menced the Reformation in England^ did also, at 
least at one period^ concur in the same acknoAV- 
ledgnaent, has been placed beyond all reasonable 
doubt. 

After viewing this body of testimony, what 
must we think of Mr, Hoivh repeated declara- 
tions, that " the Reformers, iiniversaUij admitted 
" the Apostolic claims of the Episcopal constitu- 
^ tion ;*' that " Luther and Mdancthon acknowledg- 
^' ed the obligation of Episcopacy; excusing their 
^' departure from it on the ground of necessity ;" 
that '' Episcopacy was never ranked, by the Re- 
*' formers, among the corruptions, or innovations 
" of the Papacy ;" that " they all recognized it as 
''an institution piimitive and apostolic; acknow? 
^' ledging without reserve, their obligation to con*» 
" form to itf' And what must we think of Dr. 
Bozvden^ (from whom better information and more 
caution might have been expected,) when he fully 
concurs with Dr. Hohcirt and Mr. IiOXi\ in this 
language of bold and unqualified assertion I How 
Gentlemen who have any accurate knowledge of 
the rise and progress of the Reformation ; or who 
have attended to the history and the contents of pub- 
lic Confessions, could write thus, is, indeed, unac- 
countable ! I am lost in astonishment when I think 
of the fact ! 

It only remains that we notice, for a moment, 



274 LETTER VI. 

the assertion of Dr. Bowden and Mr. How^ that in 
the Lutheran churches of Sxveden and Denmark^ 
Prelacy, both in fact and name^ is received. If 
these Gentlemen mean, that there are ministers in 
Sweden and Denmark^ who bear the titles of Bishop 
and Archbishops their assertion is undoubtedly cor- 
rect ; and this is no more than I explicitly stated in 
my former Letters. But if they mean, that the 
Szuedish and Danish churches believe in the divine 
right of Prelacy ; that they consider Episcopal or- 
dination as necessary to constitute the Christian 
ministry ; or that they do, infact^ always insist upon 
such ordination — they are unquestionably in a gross 
error j and hav^e giv^en their readers a most delu- 
•sive view of the subject. 

With respect to Szveden^ it is well known, that 
those who planted the Reformation, and ordained 
the first Protestant ministers in that country, were 
mere Presbyters. And although, from the influ- 
ence of habit^ they chose to retain the names and 
some of the functions oi Bishops and Archbishops; 
yet it is equally certain, that the first persons who 
bore these titles, were set apart to their office by 
Presbyters ; and, of course, received themselves, 
and were enabled to communicate to others, no 
other than Presbyterian ordination. As to the 
point of light in which this subject is regarded by 
the church of Sweden^ I am happy in being able to 
produce the testimony of the Rev. Dr. Collin^ Pas- 
tor of the Swedish church in Philadelphia ; a Gende- 
man whose acquaintance with the ecclesiastical sj s- 



Testhnony of the Reformers. 275 

tem of his native country cannot be doubted ; and 
whose character is a sufficient guarantee for the ac- 
curacy of his statements* He assures me, in a let- 
ter, written at my request, that all the Swedish 
Divines, and particularly those who themselves 
enjoy the Episcopal dignity, consider Episcopa- 
cy merely as a human regukition; that this is 
the doctrine of all their standard books ; that ac- 
cordingly, in the absence of those who are styled 
Bishopa^ ordinations are performed by ordinary 
clergymen ; and that even Bishops and Archbi- 
shops^ may be set apart to their office by Presby- 
ters. In support of these facts. Dr. Collin produ- 
ces the most decisive testimony from Swedish wri- 
ters of the highest authority; and declares, that 
there is but one opinion among them on the sub- 
ject. He adds, " The Danes agree with us in this 
" matter. Vandalin^ Primarius Professor of I'he- 
*' ology in Copenhagen^ in a much esteemed work 
'^ published in the year 1727, has the following pas- 
'^ sage, p. 354. An jure divino Episcopi a Presbij- 
'' teris distincti swit? Negatur ; contra Pontificios 
'' et qiiosdam Anglos.'** i. e. " Are Bishops and 
^' Presbyters distinct orders by divine right ? We 
" deny it ; in opposition to the Papists^ and to cer- 
'^ tain persons of the church of England." He then 
goes on to establish his opinion by reference to a 
number of passages of Scripture, which are pre- 
cisely those which Presbyterians usually quote. 

The result of all the testimony exhibited in 
ihe present Letter, is ibis. That the Waldenses. 



276 LETTER VI. 

the Bo/ie?nzan Brethretij and all the great individual 
witnesses for the truth, prior to the time of Luther^ 
were almost without exception, decidedly anti-pre- 
latical in their sentiments. That at the period of 
the Reformation, the Presbyterian form of church 
government was estabhshed in all the Reformed 
churches in Germanij^ Scotland^ France^ Geneva^ and 
Holland; and its establishment in all these coun-* 
tries, accompanied with public and solemn declara- 
tions that they considered this as having been the 
Apostolic and primitive form. And, that, al- 
though in the Lutheran churches of Gennanij^ Swe- 
den^ Denmark^ and other parts of Europe^ some 
ministers were invested with pre-eminent powers, 
under different titles ; yet that they all, M^ith one 
voice, declared, that in the Apostolic church, mi- 
nisterial parity prevailed ; and acknowledged, that 
the order of Bishops was brought in by human au* 
thority^ and was a regulation of expediency alone. 
Such was the doctrine maintained by those church- 
es, at that interesting period ; and the same doc- 
trine has been maintained by them uniformly to 
the present hour. It follows, then, agreeably to 
my declaration in a former Letter, that the church 
of England stands absolutely alone, in the whole 
Protestant world, in asserting the divine institution 
of Prelacy, (if indeed, she, as a church, does assert 
it, which many of her own most respectable sons 
have denied) ; that every other Protestant church 
on earth has formally disclaimed this doctrine, and 
pronouticed the distinction between Bishops and 



TestimG7iy of the Reformers* 27^ 

Presbyters to be a mere human invention ; and, 
consequently, that the doctrine of the jure divino 
prelatlsts, is so far from being the general doctrine 
of the Reformed churches, that it never has heen^ 
and is not noxv^ received, by more than a very 
small portion — a mere handful of the Protestant 
world. 

I repeat once more — the Bible is the Statute- 
book of the church of Christ; and by this book 
alone, must the question before us be finally de- 
cided. But, so far as human opinion, fortified by 
all the considerations of talents, learning and piety, 
is of any value, the doctrine of Presbyterian pa- 
rity stands on the most elevated and triumphant 
ground. 



2 A 



( 27B ) 
LETTER VIL 

The Testimony of Calvin. 

CH^ISTIAJJ BRETHREN, 

It has fallen to the lot of few hidividuals to be 
more mistaken and misrepresented than the vene- 
rable Calvin. His great talents, his profound learn- 
ing, his fervent piety, his stupendous labours, his 
astonishing self-denial, and his sublime disinteres- 
tedness, have all been insufScient to protect him 
from the grossest abuse. His personal character, 
his theological opinions, and the form of ecclesias- 
lical government which he preferred, have each, in 
turn, been the objects of accusation and slan- 
der. Had these unfair statements been either al- 
ways the same, or consistent with themselves, it 
would not have been wonderful to find them ma- 
king some impression on persons who had no ac- 
cess to sources of correct information. But when 
scarcely any two of these statements can be recon- 
ciled with each other; and when the most of them 
are expressly contradicted by authentic docu- 
ments, it is truly, a matter of wonder that they 
should be favourably received by any v/ho have the 
least claim to the c haracter of learning or impar- 



Testimony of Calvin. 279 

tiality. This wonder, however, exists. We can 
li.hdiy open a controversial work from the pen of 
any of our Episcopal brethren, without finding 
more or less obloquy directed against the illustrious 
Reformer of Geneva. 

Dr Boxvden and Mr, Hoxv have indulged them- 
selves in this obloquy in a manner, and to an extent, 
which appears to me to demand animadversion. 
And as they lay so much stress on the supposed 
concessions of Cbfoi/z in favour of Episcopacy ; and, 
at the same time, appear to enter with such hearty 
good will into every attempt, by whomsoever made, 
to load his character with reproach, I have resolved 
to devote the whole of the present letter to a view 
of the writings, the opinions, and the general 
character of that celebrated man. 

Had these gendemen, been contented with ex- 
hibiting Cahui^ as a man of a " fierce,'' *^ tur- 
bulent," and '' intolerant spirit ;" had they spo^ 
ken only of his " characteristic violence," of his 
** playing the tyrant," and of his malignant dis- 
position to crush all who opposed him ; — to such 
charges I should have thought it unnecessary 
to reply. To refute them, completely and tri- 
umphantly, as applicable in any peculiar or pre- 
eminent degree to that apostolic man, nothing 
more is requisite than a tolerable acquaintance with 
the history of his life and time. When so many 
of the greatest and best Prelates that ever adorned 
the Church of England; men ready learned, and 
breathing in an extraordinary degree the spirit of 



280 



LETTER VII. 



the Gospel, have delighted to dwell on the praises 
oi Calvin; when they have almost exhausted every 
epithet of respect in eulogizing his talents, his learn- 
ing, his piety, his judgment, and the usefulness of 
his labours ; — his memory surely needs no defence 
against the attacks of Br. Bowden and Mr. Hoxv. 
But when these gentlemen bring forward allegations 
and extracts, which are calculated to mislead even 
their intelligent readers, and to set the declarations 
and the practice of the pious Reformer at variance ; 
I deem it my duty to make a few remarks, and to 
state a few facts, in vindication of what I consider 
as the cause of primitive truth and order. 

Dr. Bowden and Mr. How represent Presbyterian- 
ism as having originated with Calvin. Now it hap- 
pens that Presbyterianism^ (to say nothing of its 
apostolic origin,) was introduced into Geneva^ be- 
fore Calvin ever saw that city, when he was about 
nineteen years of age, and while he w^as yet in the 
communion of the Church of Rome. The follow- 
ing quotation from Dr. Heylin^ a high-toned Epis- 
copalian, and a favourite authority of Dr. Bowden ^ 
will be considered by him as decisive. " In this 
'^ condition it (GentvaJ continued, till the year 
^' 1528, when those of Berne^ after a public dispu- 
" tation held, had made an alteration in religion, 
" defLicing images, and innovaiing all things in the 
'' Church on the Z^fvi/^^/ifif/i principles. Viretus iwrA 
^'.FarellnSj two men exceeding studious of the 
'^ Reformation, had gained some footing in Geneva^ 
^' about that time, and laboured v/ith the Bishop to 



l^estimony of Calvin. 231 

** admit of such alterations, as had been newly 
*•• made in Berne. But when they saw no hopes 
*^ of prevailing with him, they practised on the 
*^ lower part of the people, with whom they had 
*' gotten most esteem, and travelled so eiTectually 
" with them in it, that the Bishop and his clergy, 
" in a popular tumult^ are expelled the town, never 
'^ to be restored to their former power. After 
** which they proceeded to reform the Church, de- 
" facing images, and following in all points the ex- 
*"' ample of Beriie^ as by Vireiiis and Farellus they 
^* had been instructed ; whose doings in the same, 
" were afterwards countenanced and approved by 
*' Calvin^ as himself confesseth^." 

The declaration oi Calvin to which Heylln refers, 
is probably that which he makes in his famous 
Letter to Cardinal Sadolet. In the beginning of 
that Letter, he expressly informs the Cardinal, that 
** the religious sj'stem of Geneva had been institu- 
" ted, and its ecclesiastical government reformed, 
" before he was called thither. But that what had 
*' been done by Farel and Viret^ he heartily ap- 
" proved, and strove, by all the means in his pow- 
" er, to preserve and establish.'^'* 

Beza also informs us, and, after him, Melchior 
Adam^ and others, that in the year 1536, when CaU 
vin stopped at Geneva^ on his way to Basil^ without 
having ihe remotest thought of settling at the for- 
mer place, Farel and Viret^ then Pastors of Geneva^ 

* Heylin's Hist, of Presbyter, p. 4—9. 

2 A2 



282 . LETTER VII. ^ 

earnestly Importuned hiai to remain la that cit}% 
and to become their associate in the ministry ; that 
he still, however, declined; that it was not untrl 
Farel ventured, in the name of the Omnipotent 
(>od, to denounce a curse against him, if he should 
persist in refusing, that he consented to remain at 
Geneva ; and that he at length submitted himself to 
the will of the Presbytery, and of the magistrates, 
by whose suffrages, the consent of the people being 
obtained, he v/as elected and set apart as a Pastor, 
and also as a public Teacher of divinity, in the 
month of August, 1536"^^. From this statement one 
fact is indubitable, viz. tS^at there was a Presbijtenj 
in Geneva before Cabin went thither. Another 
fact is equally clear, viz, that the setdement of a 
minister was considered as a proper act of the 
Presbytery. Nor will it in the least degree serve 
the cause of my opponents to contend that the ec- 
clesiastical system of Geneva was, afierxvards^ new- 
modelied and improved by Calvin. Be it so. Still 
it is certain that the leading principles of Presby- 
terian polity, viz. the the doctrine of ministerial 
paritif^ the government of the Church by Presbyter 
ries^ and the appointment of Ruling Elders^ or a 
number of pious and judicious laymen, formed in- 
to Church Sessions^ or Consistories^ to assist in ad- 
iPiinistering discipline, were received and in use, 
before the public ministry of Calvin commenced, 
or any of his writings had appeared. 

* See BeziL^ Life of Calsjln ; a:y.l MelcJiior Adani^^ do. 
\r €8. 



Testimony of Cahhu 28o 

Dr. Henry More^ in his Dhine Dialogues^ p. 82. 
speaking of the Reibrniation of Geneva^ says, — 
^' As for Calvin^ the charge of rebelHon upon him 
^^ is, that he expelled the Bishop of Geneva^ who 
*' was the chief magistrate of tliat city, and chang- 
•'' ed the governnnent, and so carried on the Refor- 
*' mation. But this is a mere calumny against CaU 
'' t.7'/^, and xvithout all ground ; for not so much as 
*''" that is true, that Cahin was one of the first plan- 
*' ters of the Reformation at Geneva; and much 
*' less that he, or any other Reformers expelled the 
^' Bishop out of that city. It was Farel^ Viret^ and 
^' Fromenty that, by their preaching, converted Ge- 
'"^ neva^ in the Bishop's absence, who fled away 
*^ eight months before, being hated by the citizens 
^' for the rape of a virgin^ and many adulteries xvith 
'' their rvives.'^'' 

That Dr. Boxvden and Mr. Hoxv should be un- 
acquainted with all this, is truly surprising! I 
know, indeed, that it is expecting too much to sup- 
pose that these gentlemen will take the trouble to 
investigate more than one side of this controversy. 
But when their own favourite v^riters might have 
informed them of all the facts above stated, it is 
rather singular that they should have yet to learn 
them. 

Another allegation of these Gendemen is, that 
Calvin^ in the early part of his public life, thought 
very favourably of diocesan Episcopacy, and even 
believed and acknowledged its Apostolic origin. 
That afterzvards^ when he had undertaken to erect 



284 LETTER VII. 

a church on a different model, and especially when 
he had the prospect of attaining great distinction 
in the Presbyterian establishment oi Geneva^ he be* 
gan to alter his views and his language ; but that, 
even after he had fairly embarked in support of 
Presbyterian principles, he rather defended him- 
self by the plea of necessity than divine authority. 
Nay, Mr. Hoxv declares, that Calvin^ in rearing the 
church of Geneva^ acknowledged that he was depart- 
ing from the primitive discipline; that he consider- 
ed prelacy as an apostolic institution ; and that he 
expressed a decided preference in favour of this 
form of government : But adds, " I deny not that 
*^ Calvin and Beza held, afterwards^ a language 
*' more Presbyterial. At length, indeed, schism, 
^^ and the pride of sect, either changed their senti- 
*' ments, or perverted their principles. In fact, 
*^ the conduct of these men, in relation to the minis- 
" try of the Christian church, presents one of the 
*^ most melancholy examples of the prevalence of 
" pride over virtue, and of the unhappy influence 
^' of schism, in blinding and infatuating the mind, 
*' that the history of human frailty has ever record- 
" ed." Letters^ p. 62 — 75. Dr. Bowden^ is equal- 
ly positive in asserting, that Calvin believed and ac- 
knowledged the Apostolic origin of Episcopacy ; 
and that he justified himself in departing from it 
only on the ground of necessity. In fact, by sub- 
scribing and referring to Dr. Hobarth statement of 
the case» in his Apology for Apostolic Order ^ p. 91 



Testimony of Calvin. 285 

^— lir, the reverend Professor has gone the whole 
length of Mr. Hoxv. 

When I read assertions of this kind, I cannot 
help recollecting, in a welUknovvn and popular 
fictitious history, a certain chapter which bears 
the following tide — '* An humble attempt to prove 
" that an author will write the better for having 
'* some knowledge of the subject on which he 
" writes." If I had the least apprehension that these 
gentlemen had ever perused the works of Calvin^ 
or really knew what he has left on record upon 
this subject, such a representation, so frequently 
and confidently made, would excite feelings more 
unfavourable than those of astonishment. But as 
I have no such apprehension, and feel perfecdy per- 
suaded that the perusal of a few detached passages, 
forms the sum total of their acquaintance with CaU 
%)inh writings, I cannot find in my heart to apply a 
severe epithet to a misrepresentation so total con- 
cerning the history of his language and opinions. 

The truth is, that the earliest of CahiiVs wxi- 
tings contain some of" the strongest declarations in 
favour of Presbyterian principles that are to be 
found in all his works. His InsiitutiQns^ his first 
theological work, were published in 1536, before 
he had ever seen Geneva; before he ever thought 
of settling there; and when he was so far from 
aspiring to pre-eminence in any Presbyterian es- 
tablishment, that he does not appear to have had in 
view the pastoral office in any Church. Nov/ it is 
certain that this work is as decisive on the subject 



286 LLTTER Vil. 

of Presbytery as any that ever came fi^om his pen* 
At that period, when his mind appears to have been 
as dispassionate and impartial as ever that of a Re- 
former was ; when he had no visible temptation to 
deviate from the Apostolic model ; and when both 
habit and prejudice were leagued against Presby- 
tery, and in favour of Episcopacy ; at that period, 
and in that work, he decidedly declared himself an 
advocate of Presbyterian government, as the truly 
Apostolic and primitive plan. But the following quo- 
tations from it will place this fact in a stronger hght, 
than any reasonings or statements of mine. 

Book IV. Chap. iii. In this chapter he ex- 
pressly declares it to be his intention to exhibit 
*' that order by which it was the Lord's will to 
have his Church governed." — In doing this, he un- 
equivocally delivers it as his opinion, that the Apos- 
tolic model of Church government was Presbyte- 
rian ; — that both the office and ordination of Bishop 
and Presbyter were the same; that the scriptural 
Bishop was the Pastor of a single Church ; that 
there were sometimes more Bishops than one in 
the primitive Churches, and all on a perfect equali- 
ty ; and that there were Ru!i:2g Elckis and Dea- 
eons in those Churches, exactly on the Presbyte- 
rian plan. 

The following extracts, out of many that might 
be made, are decisive. " Whereas I have indis- 
*' criminately called those who govern the Church- 
" es. Bishops^ Prehhyters^ and Pastors^ I have 
'' done so according to the usage of Scripture, 



Testimony of Cahhu 28^ 

" which indifferently employs these terms to de^ 
*' signate the same officer \ for whoever executes 
" the office of ministers of the Gospel, to them the 
" Scriptures give the title of Bishops. So by Paul^ 
*' where Titus is commanded to ordain Elders in 
*'' every city, it is immediately added, y^/r a Bi" 
" shop must be blameless^ Sifc. Tit. i. 5. So, in 
*' another place, CFhzHp, i. 1.) he salutes many 
" Bishops in one Church. And in the Acts it is 
*' related that he called together the Elders of 
'* Ephesus^ whom he himself, in his discourse to 
'' xh^m^ styles Bishops. Acts xx. 17. But here it 
'^ is to be observed, that hitherto we have only ta- 
'^ ken notice of those offices which pertain to the 
" ministry of the word ; neither doth Paul make 
" mention of any other in the fourth chapter of 
" the Epistle to the Ephesians^ which we before 
" cited. But in the Epistle to the Romans (xii. 
^^ 7.) and in the first Epistle to the Corinthians^ 
" (xii. 28) he reckons up other offices, as powers, 
^' the gift of healing, interpretation, government, 
'^ taking care of the poor. Of these, I omit such as 
*^ were merely temporary, because it is not worth 
^' the trouble to dwell upon them. But there are 
" two that are permanent, government^ and the 
'' care of the poor. Those who governed were, 
" in my opinion. Elders chosen out of the laymen 
^^ of each congregation, who, together with the Bi- 
" shops, bore rule in the correction of morals, and 
" in the exercise of discipline. For no one can 
" otherwise expound that which the Apostle saith, 



^j3B LKTTER VII* 

*' (^Rom. Xii. 8.) He that ruleth let him do it xv'ith 
" diligence. Every Church, therefore, from the 
*' beginning, had its own Senate^ collected from 
'' among the godly, gfave and holy, who had that 
*' jurisdiction over the correction of vices of which 
" we shall speak hereafter. — And, moreover, that 
^' this was the order of more than one age, expe- 
'^ rience itself teaches. This office of government, 
" therefore, is necessary for all ages." 

'' The care of the poor was committed to the 

^^ Deacons Although the word Deacon has 

*' a more extensive meaning; yet the Scripture 
" especially calls them Deacons^ to whom the 
^' Church hath given in charge the distribution of 
*' alms, and the care of the poor ; and hath ap- 
^' pointed them, as it were, stewards of the com- 
" mon treasury of the poor — whose origin, institu- 
*' tion, and office are described by Luke m Acts vi. 
*-' For when a murmuring arose among the Gre- 
" cians^ because in the ministrations to the poor, their 
^' widow^s were neglected, the Apostles, excusing 
" themselves, as not being adequate to the execu- 
" tion of both offices, both the preaching of the 
" w^ord, and the ministering at tables, requested 
" the multitude to choose seven honest men, to 
" whom they might commit that business. Behold 
^' what manner of Deacons the Apostolic Church 
" had ; and what kind of Deacons it becomes us 
" to have in conformity with their example !" 

Book iv. Chap. 4th. Having treated of the or- 
der of the Church as ^' delivered in the pure Word 



Testimony of Cabin. 28# 

of God, and of the ministries as instituted by 
Christ," he undertakes, in this chapter, to exhibit the 
order which obtained in the " ancient Church,'* 
that is, as he explains it, the Church as it existed 
soon after the Apostolic age, and before the rise of 
the Papacy. Now this ^^ ancient Church," he ex- 
pressly declares, deviated from the pure Apostolic 
model ; but, at the same time, he supposes that the 
deviation was not great or essential. He proceeds, 
*'^ As we have declared that there are three sorts 
*' of ministers commended to us in the Scriptures ; 
*^ so all the ministers that the ancient Church had, 
" it divided into three orders. For out of the or- 
'^ der of Presbyters, part were chosen Pastors and 
'' Teachers^ and the rest bore rule in the adminis- 
" tration of discipline. To the Deacons was com- 
" mitted the care of the poor, and the distribution 
" of alms. All those to whom the office of teach- 
" ing was committed, were called Presbyters. 
" They, in every city, chose one, out of their own 
*' number, to whom they, specially, gave the title 
*' of Bishop ; that dissentions might not grow out 
" of equality, as is wont to be the case. Yet the 
" Bishop was not so in honour and dignity above 
*' the rest, as to have any dominion over his coU 
*' leagues ; but the office which the Consul had in 
'' the Senate, to propose business; to collect opin- 
" ions ; to preside in consulting, admonishing, and 
*' exhorting ; to direct, by his authority, the whole 
'^ process of business ; and to put in execution that 
*' which was decreed by the common counsel of aU^ 
2 B 



290 LETTER VII. 

" —the same office had the Bishop in the assem^ 
^' biy of Presbyters. And even this the ancient 
^' writers themselves confess, was brought in by 
^' human consent^ on account of the necessity of the 
"times. — Therefore ye'ro;^^, in his commentary 
" on the Epistle to Titus^ saith — A Presbyter was 
" the same with a Bishop. And before there were, 
" by the Devil's instigation, dissentions in religiony 
*' and it was said among the people, I am of Paiil^ 
*^ and / of Cephas^ the Churches were governed 
" by the common council of Presbyters. After- 
^' wards, that the seeds of dissention might be 
" plucked up, all the care was devolved on one per- 
*' son. — As therefore the Presbyters know that 
^' by the custom of the Churchy they are subject to 
" him who presides among them ; so let the Bi- 
" shops know, that they are above the Presbyters 
*' rather by custom^ than by any real appointment 
*' of Christ ; and that they ought to govern the 
" Churches in common. And in another place, 
" (Epist. ad Evagr.J he teaches how ancient an 
" institution this was ; for he says that at Alexati" 
" dria^ from Mark^ the Evangelist, down to Hera- 
*' das and Dicnysius^ the Presbyters always placed 
" one, chosen out of their own number, in a high- 
" er station, and called him Bishop. Every city, 
" then, had a college of Presbyters, who were 
*' Pastors and Teachers, and who all executed 
" among the people the offices of instructing, ex- 
" horting, and exercising discipline, whirh Paul 
" enjoins on Bishops, Titus i. 9. And every one 



Testimony of Calvin. 291 

"' of these colleges, (as I said before,) was under 
" the presidency of one Bishop, who was only so 
" far above the rest in dignity, as to be himself 
'' subject to the assembly of his brethren." 

In chapter 11th, Sect. 6, of the same Book, 
spe-aking of the exercise of discipline in particular 
Churches, he says — " But such authority was not 
" in the power of one man, to do every thing ac- 
*' cording to his own will ; but in the assembly of 
*' the Elders, which was the same thing in the 
" Church that a senate is in a city. The com- 
*' mon and usual manner was for the authority of 
" the Church to be exercised by a senate of Elders, 
" of whom (as I have before said) there were two 
" sorts^ for some were ordained to teach^ and 
** others only to rule in matters of discipline. But 
" by little and little this institution degenerated 
" from its original character ; so that even in the 
" time of Ambrose^ the clergy alone had cognizance 
" of ecclesiastical causes, of which he complains 
" in these words — The ancient synagogue," says 
he, *^ and afterwards the Church, had Elders, 
" without whose counsel nothing was done." — We 
** see how much the holy man was displeased, that 
*^ there should be a falling off in any respect, when 
" as yet things continued, to say the least, in a 
'^ tolerable condition. — What would he have said 
'' if he had seen the mis-shapen ruins which now 
*^ appear, and which exhibit scarcely any vestige of 
*•' the ancient edifice? What lamentation would 
*^ he have expressed ? For, first, against ]aw and 



292 ' LETTER VII. 

'' right, the Bishop hath usurped to himself that 
** authority which was vested in the Church. For 
'' it is all one as if the Consul had expelled the Se- 
*' nate, and assumed the empire to himself alone. 
" For surely, though he is in honour superior to 
*"' the rest, yet there is more authority in the coU 
'' lege than in one man. It was, therefore, a very 
'' wicked deed^ that one man, having gotten into his 
^' own hands the power which was before common 
'' to the whole college, paved the way to tyranni- 
^' cal domination, snatched from the Church h«r 
'* own right, and abolished the Presbytery, which, 
" by the Spirit of Christ had been ordained." 

Book IV. Chapter, v. Sect. 15. " Now let the 
'' Deacons come forth, and that holy distribution 
"' which they have of the Church's goods ; although 
'' they by no means, at present, create their Dea- 
^* cons for that purpose. For they (the Papists) 
'' enjoin upon them nothing else but to minister at 
" the altar, to read or sing the Gospels, and to 
'' perform I know not what trifles. Nothing of 
" the alms^ nothing of the care of the poor^ nothing 
^^ of the whole function which, \x\ former times^ they 
" executed. I speak of the very institution; for 
'' if we have a respect to what they do, it is not in 
^' itself an office, but only a step toward the priest- 
** hood. Therefore they mock the Church with 
" this lying Deaconry. Truly therein they have 
*^ nothing like, either the institution of the Apos- 
^* ties, or ancient usage." 



Testimo7iy of Cabin. 293 

Such was the language of Cahin in 1536> when 
he was just entering on his great career. And 
this was his uniform language to the end of his 
life. I cannot find a single passage in all his wri- 
tings in which he speaks with greater severity of 
diocesan Episcopacy, than in some of the preced- 
ing extracts. On their import it is unnecessary to 
enlarge. They speak lor themselves. 

The following extracts from Cafom's Commenta- 
ry, written at different periods of his life, and un- 
der different circumstances, will show that his opin- 
ion on the subject in dispute was uniformly the 
same. 

In his Commentary on Philip, i. 1. written in the 
year 1548, we find the following passage. " He 
'' calls the Pastors^ Bishops yfor tliQ sake of honour. 
'^ Moreover we infer from this place that the name 
*' of Bishop is common to all ministers of the 
^' word^ since the Apostle assigns ^plurality of 5/- 
^' shops to a single Church. The names Bishop 
^' and Pastor are, therefore, synonymous. And 
*' this passage is one of those which Jerome cites 
^' to prove the same thing, in his Epistle to Eva* 
" grius^ and in his exposition of the Epistle to 77- 
*' tus. Afterwards it became customary that he 
*' who presided in the bench of Presbyters of a par- 
" ticular Church, should alone be called Bishop. 
*' This, however, arose from human custoyn^ and is 
*^ by no means supported by Scripture. — I confess, 
^ indeedjthat such are the tempers and habits of mei) 
2 B 2 



294 , LETTER VtU 

" that order cannot be maintained among ministefs 
" of the word, unless one preside. But I speak of 
*^ particular bodies ; not of whole provinces ; and 
" much less of the whole world. And although 
" it is not proper to dispute about words ; yet it 
'* is better in speaking, to follow the Holy Spirit, 
" the author of language, than to change the forms 
" of expression established by him for the worse. 
" — For out of the corrupted signification of a 
*' w^ord, this evil arose, that thence, as if all the 
" Presbyters were not colleagues^ and called to the 
" saJiie function^ one, under the pretext of a iiexv 
" tttle^ arrogated to himself a dominion over others^'* 
In his exposition of Titus i. 5. written in 1549, 
he thus writes. " Presbyters or Elders^ it is well 
" known, are not so denominated on account of 
^^ their age^ since young men are sometimes chosen 
" to this office, as, for instance, Timothy ; but it 
" has always been customary, in all languages, to 
" apply this tide, as a term of honour, to all rulers. 
^' And as we gather, from the first Episde to 77- 
" mothy^ that there were two kinds of Elders, 
" so here the context shows that no other than 
*' teaching Elders are to be understood ; that is, 
*• those who were ordained to teach ; because the 
*' same persons are immediately afterwards called 
*^ Bishops* — It may be objected, that too much 
*^ power seems to be given to Titus^ when the 
^' Apostle commands him to appoint ministers over 
^* aH the Churches. This, it may be said, is little 
*' less than kingly powers for^ on this pla% the 



Testimony of Calvin, 295 

" right of choice is taken away from the particu- 
*' lar Churches, and the right of judging in the 
" case from the college of Pastors ; and this would 
" be to profane the whole of the sacred discipline 
" of the church. But the answer is easy. Every 
*' thing was not entrusted to the will of Titus as an 
" individual^ nor was he allowed to impose such 
" Bishops on the Churches as he pleased ; but he 
" was commanded to preside in the elections, as a 
'' Moderator^ as it is necessary for some one to do. 
*' This is a mode of speaking exceedingly common. 
^^ Thus a Consul, or Regent, or Dictator is said 
" to create Consuls, because he convenes assem^ 
*' blies for the purpose of making choice of them. 
^' So also Luke uses the same mode of speaking 
" concerning Paul and Barnabas^ in the Acts of the 
** Apostles ; not that they alone, authoritatively ap- 
" pointed Pastors over the Churches, without their 
*' being tried or approved ; but they ^r^-dr/zz^^suitable 
" men, who had been 'elected, or chosen by the peo- 
" pie. We learn also, from this place, that there w^as 
*^ not, then, such an equality among the ministers of 
** the Church, as was inconsistent with some one 
** presiding in authority and council^. This, how- 

* The original of this sentence is as follows — Discimus 
quidon ex hoc ioco, ncn eamfuisse tunc equalitatem inter Ec- 
clesia niinistros quin unus aliquis autoritate et consiiio prceesset. 
Dr. Boiiiden and Mr. Hovi both quote this sentence, both 
undertake to translate it for the benefit of their readers, and 
both concur in giving the following translation — " Hence we 
** learn that there was not any equality among the ministers 
** of the Church, but that one was placed over the rest in 



296 LETTER VII, 

*' ever, is nothing like the tyrannical and unscriptu^ 
'' ral prelacy which reigns in the Papacy. The 
*' plan of the Apostles was extremely different." 

On the 7th verse of the same chapter, he thus ex- 
presses himself — " Moreover this place abundantly 
>' teaches us that there is no difference between 
" Presbyters and Bishops ; hQcausQ the Apostle 
" now calls promiscuously by the second of these 
*"^ names, those whom he had before called Presby- 
" ters; and indeed the argument which follows, 
*;^ employs both names indifferently in the same 
\'' sense; which Jerome hath observed, as well in 
" his commentary on this passage, as in his Epistle 
*' to Evagrhis. And hence we may see how much 
** more has been yielded to the opinions of men 
*' than was decent : because the style of the Holy 
" Spirit being abrogated, a custom introduced by 
*' the will of man, prevailed. — I do not, indeed, 
** disapprove of the opinion, that, soon after the com- 
" mencement of the Church, every college of Bi- 
" shops had some one to act as Moderator. But 
" that a name of office which God had given in 
*' common to all^ should be transferred to an indi^ 

** authority and council." This is one of the principal 
quotations from Calvin on which they found the assertion 
that he believed in the Apostolical origin of Episcopacy ! In- 
stead of saying what they ascribe to it, it asserts directly the 
contrary. It declares that there was an official equality 
among the ministers of the primitive Church ; but, at the 
same time, an equality by no means inconsistent with one be- 
ing Moderator, This is precisely the Presbyterian doctrine 
and practice. 



Testimony of Calvin. 297 

*' vidual alone ^ the rest being robbed of it^ was both 
" injurious and absurd. Wherefore so to pervert 
*' the language of the Holy Spirit, as that the same 
" expressions should convey a meaning to us diffe- 
'^ rent from that which he intended^ partakes too 
^' much oi profane audacity.'^'* 

In his commentary on i Peter v. 1. written in 
1551, and dedicated to Edward VI, of England^ 
the following passage occurs. ^' Presbyters* By 
" this title he designates Pastors^ and whoever 
*' were appointed to the government of the Church. 
*' And since Peter calls himself a Presbyter, like 
" the rest, it is hence apparent that this name was 
*' common ; which, indeed, from many other pas- 
*' sages appears still more clearly. Moreover, by 
*' this title he claimed to himself authority ; as if he 
" had said, that he admonished Pastors in his own 
" right, because he was one of their number ; for 
" among colleagues there ought to be this mutual 
*' privilege. Whereas if he had enjoyed any pre- 
" eminence of authority among them, he might 
'^ have urged that, and it would have been more 
'^ pertinent to the occasion : But although he was 
" an Apostle, yet he knew that this gave him no 
*^ authority over his colleagues ; but that he was 
" rather joined with the rest in a social office." 

Calvin's exposition of the first Epistle to Ti?nO' 
thy was written in the year 1556, and dedicated to 
the Duke oi Somerset^ Lord Protector of England* 
In his remarks on the fifth chapter and seventeenth 
verse, of that Epistle, he speaks thus. — '^ From 



298 LETTER VII. 

*' this passage we may gather that there were then 
" two kinds of Presbyters^ because they were not 
" a// ordained to the work of teaching. For the 
** words plainly mean, that some ruled 7vell^ to 
" whom no part of the public instruction was com- 
" mitted. And verily there were chosen from 
*' among the people, grave and approved men, who, 
" in common council, and joint authority with the 
" Pastors, administered the discipline of the phurch, 
" and acted the part of censors for the correction 
" of morals. ■ This practice Ambrose complains 
" had fallen into disuse^ through the indolence^ or 
*' rather the pride of the teaching Elders, while 
" they wished to be alone distinguished," 

I will only add, that, in his commentary on Acts 
XX, 28, written in 1560, a short time before his 
death, he expresses himself thus — ^' Concerning 
^' the word Bishops it is observable, that Paul gives 
" this title to all the Presbyters of Ephesus : from 
" which we may infer, that according to Scripture, 
'' Presbyters differed, in no respect^ from Bishops : 
" but that it arose from corruption^ and a departure 
'^^ from primitive purity^ that those who held the 
" first seats in particular cities, began to be called 
*' Bishops. I say that it arose from corruption^ not 
" that it is an evil for some one, in each college of 
" Pastors, to be distinguished above the rest ; but 
" because it is intolerable presumption^ that men, 
** in perverting the titles of Scripture to their own 
" humour, do no hesitate to alter the meaning of 
** the Holy Spirit." 



Testimony of Calvin^ 299 

But, in spite of all these repeated and positive 
declarations of Cahin^ Dr. Boxvden and Mr. How 
still insist, that he acknowledged the Apostolical 
institution of Prelacy, and offered the plea of nc' 
cessity for adopting the Presbyterian government 
in Geneva. To prove this, they produce two ex- 
tracts from his writings, which have really nothing 
to do with the subject; but which, ever since the 
time of the ignorant or disingenuous Durell^ have 
been trumphantly quoted by high-church-men, for 
a similar purpose. 

The first of these extracts is from Calvin^s fa- 
mous letter to Cardinal Sadolet^ and is in the fol- 
lowing words. " We do not deny that we want a 
" discipline such as the ancient Church (Vetus Ec' 
*' clesiaj had. But with what justice can we be 
" accused of subverting discipline, by those very 
" men (the Papists) who alone have entirely de- 
" stroyed it ; and who, when we endeavoured to 
^' restore it, have hitherto prevented us? But 
'' with respect to doctrine^ we are willing to be 
*^* compared with the ancient Church*." 

How far this extract really goes towards proving 
the point intended to be established by it, will ap- 
pear from the following analysis of the Letter. 
Calviji^ in his reply to Sadolet^ pursues the method 
which the Cardinal had adopted in arranging 
his charges against the Church of Geneva. He 



* Ad Sadoletum Responsio Ca.1uVIi^i. Tractatus Theologici , 
p. 125. 



300 LETTER VII. 

firmly defends his own ministry, which we all know 
was Presbyterian^ and which his antagonist had re- 
presented as invalid. He warmly refutes the 
-charge of ambition^ and pecuniary influence, alleged 
against the reforming ministers. After defining 
what he means by a Church ; and after repelling 
the charge, that he had left the Church, by show- 
ing that he had only reformed it ; he invites Sadolet 
to compare their respective Churches with the An^ 
dent Church. The Cardinal could not, consistent- 
ly with Popish pretensions, submit to be tried by 
the state of the Church as described in the New 
Testament. Calvin, therefore, although he con- 
sidered the Apostolic Church as the only proper 
model, waves his right, for the sake of argument, 
and challenges the Cardinal to compare with anti' 
quity. " Not," says he expressly, " not with that 
form which the Apostles appointed, which is the 
only model of a true Church ;" but even with the 
^' Ancient Church^^ 2iS it stood in the days of Ghry" 
sostom and Basil, among the Greeks ; and of Cy^ 
prian, Ambrose, fc?c. among the Latins : which 
" ancient Church," he justly asserts, differed as 
much from the Church of Rome, at the time of his 
writing, as did the reign of David from that of Z?- 
dekiah. In order to make an impression on Popish 
minds, Calvin judged it more suitable to show the 
defection of their Church from what they them- 
selves called the standard, than their inconsistency 
with Apostolic order, about which they had less 
concern. 



Testi?nc7it/ of Calvin. 301 

Calvin maintains in this Letter, tfiat the Sacra* 
ments and the doctrine of the " ancient Church," 
corresponded much more nearly with the Reform* 
ed than with the Popish Church. He readily con- 
fesses that the discipline of the Reformed, differs 
from that of the " ancient Church." But he al- 
leges, at the same time, that this concession can- 
not avail the Cardinal, whose Church differs still 
viore from that discipline. And he also alleges, 
that, amidst all the opposition and difficulties with 
which they had to struggle, in the restoration of 
strict discipline, they were still going on; that 
they had already approached nearer to the ^' an* 
cient Church" than their popish neighbours'; and, 
by perseverance, were likely soon even to surpass 
that model. Now, all this reasoning would have 
been very preposterous, if Calvin had been here 
speaking of Prelacy. For how could the Church 
of Geneva^ which was Presbyterian in its form, be 
72earer^ on prelatical principles, to the " ancient 
Church," than that of Rofne was which embraced 
Prelacy ? And, above all, how could Calvi?i say 
that the Church of Geneva was still approaching 
nearer to the " ancient Church" in discipline^ and 
was likely to surpass it ? Was the Church of Ge^^ 
neva then growing more prelatical P No one ever 
supposed it. The truth is, by discipline^ Calvin and 
Sadolet both mean the system of rules for directing 
the xvhole christian conduct both of ministers and 
people. There is nothing in this part of the argu- 
2 C 



302 XETTER VII. 

ment that has the least reference to different orders 
in the ministry. 

It turns out, then, that this famous extract from 
the Letter to Sadolet has nothing to do with the 
question in dispute ; that the tenor of the Letter, 
so far as it bears on Prelacy, is directly opposed to 
it ; that the Vetus Ecclesia^ the " ancient Church,'' 
intended by Calvin^ is not, as he himself expressly 
declares, the Church as it was left by the Apostles, 
but as it stood in the third and fourth centuries ; 
that the discipline of which he speaks, has no re- 
ference to orders in the Christian ministry ; and, 
of course, that the boasted passage in question 
could never have been quoted as affording the least 
hint in favour of Prelacy, excepting by those who 
had never read the whole letter, or grossly pervert- 
ed its evident meaning. With the latter, I do not 
charge Dr. Bowden or Mr. Hoxv. I take for 
granted . they have never read a sentence of the 
Letter, excepting the detached passage under con- 
sideration. They have been led astray by others, 
probably as little acquainted with it as themselves. 

The other passage which Mr. How quotes as 
positive proof that Calvin believed in the divine in- 
stitution of Prelacy, is taken from his 1 ract De 
Necessitate Reformandcc Ecclesicv^ as follows. " If 
" they (the Papists) would exhibit to us an hierarchy, 
^^ in which the Bishops should be so distinguished, 
" as not to refuse subjection to Christ ; then I will 
" confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, if 
" any such there be, who would not reverence it, 



Testhnony of Calvin. 303 

^* and submit themselves to it with the utmost obe- 
" dience*," 

This passage, when impartially examined, will 
be found as litde to the purpose as the former. It 
is only saying, that Calvin stood ready to approve of 
a scriptural and prvnitive Episcopacy, whenever it 
should be introduced. And would not all Presby- 
teriansy as well as Calvin^ say the same thing ? 
Nay, blessed be God ! we can go further. It is 
the happiness of our Church that we have such 
AN Episcopacy, and we glory in having it. CaU 
vin never denied that there were Bishops in the 
days of the Apostles. No Presbyterian ever de- 
nied it. It is for such an Episcopacy as was estab- 
lished by inspired men in Jerusalem,, Ephesus^ An-' 
tioch^ and Philippic, that we contend j and the ven- 
erable Reformer of Geneva meant no other. 

It has been said that Calvin's employing the 
word hierarchy fhierarchiamj in this passage, 
proves that he referred with approbation to an ec- 
clesiastical constitution embracing different orders 
of clergy. It has been even asserted, that this 
word is exclusively appropriated to government by 
Prelates ; and that no instance can be found of its 
application to any other kind of ecclesiastical regi- 
men. This is a total mistake. The word hierar* 
chy simply implies sacred or ecclesiastical govern^ 
?nent. It may be applied with as much propriety 
to Presbyterianism or Independency,^ as to diocesan 

* y. Cahini Tractatus Theolo^lcL p. 69. 



304 LETTER VI !• 

Episcopacy. It has been often so applied by the 
best writers. But, what settles the matter is, that 
Calvin himself so applies it. In his Institutions^ 
Lib. iv. Cap. 5. he speaks of " that hierarchy or 
spiritual governments'^ which was left in the Church 
by the Apostles, and which he expressly declares, 
in the same chapter, to have been Presbyterian in 
its form. Many other instances might be pro- 
duced in which this Reformer has used the same 
word in a similar sense. When gentlemen under- 
take to interpret Calvin^ and especially to speak with 
so much positiveness of his meaning, they ought to 
have some acquaintance with his writings. 

Where now, let me ask, is the proof of which 
my opponents speak so much, and so confidently, 
that Calvin believed in the divine institution of 
Prelacy ; that he lamented the want of it in Gene- 
va; and that he justified himself by the plea of 
necessity^ in establishing Presbyterian government 
in that Church ? It is not to be found. No such 
proof exists. They have not produced a syllable 
which looks like it. Nor do I believe that they 
can produce a solitary scrap, from all his volumi- 
nous writings, nor any well attested declaration*, 
made <7/ anif period of his public life^ which will 
bear such a construction. 

* I say vidl attested, because the story which Dr. J5o*ivden 
gravely repeats of Calvi?h Bullinger, &c. having written to 
Ed'i-card VI, in 1549, " offering to make him their defender, 
and to have Bishops in their Churches, for better unity and 
concord," is not so attested. I think no impartial reader can 



lestimony of Cahhu 305 

The truth Is, Calvin never pretended any such 
necessity. On the contrary, he steadfastly represent- 
ed the Genevan form of government and discipline, 
as strictly agreeable to the word of God, and as 
that which he felt himself bound, by obedience to 
Christ, to establish and defend. '^ Besides," says 
he, " that our conscience acquits us in the sight of 
" God, the thing itself will answer for us in the 
" sight of men. Nobody has yet appeared that 
" could prove that we had altered any one things 
" which God has commanded ; or that we have 
" appointed any new thing, contrary to his word ; 
" or that we have turned aside from the truth, to 
^* follow any evil opinion. On the contrary, it is 
" manifest that we have reformed our Church 
" MERELY BY God's WORD, which is the only ride 
" by Avhich it is to be ordered, and lawfully defend- 
ed. It is, indeed, an unpleasant work to alter 
'^ what has been formerly in use, were it not that 
*' the order which God has once fixed, must be es- 
^ teemed by us as sacred and inviolable ; insomuch 
" that if it has, for a time, been laid aside, it must 



peruse the account, as given hyStrypc, (the most respectable 
authority quoted in support of it,) without suspecting the 
whole to be a fable. Let us see the Letter ; and we will an- 
swer to the charge. But even admitting this to be trucy 
to what does it amount ? Why, that Calviii, in an evil hour, 
made a concession with respect to Prelatesy similar to tJiat 
•which Melancthon had made before him, with respect to the 
Pope; and that in direct opposition to all his solemnly de- 
clared principles, and uniform practice. 

2C2 



(& 



306 LETTER Vll^ 

" of necessity, (and whatever the consequences 
" should prove,) be restored again. No antiquity, 
^' no prescription of custom, may be allowed to be 
" an obstacle in this case, that the government of 
*' the Church which God has appointed, should 
^^ not be perpetual, since the Lord himself has once 
^' fxedk%'' 

So much for the opinion of Calvin on the sub- 
ject of Episcopacy* I shall now proceed to take 
notice of some other allegations which Dr. Bowden 
has made concerning this great man, and which are 
as destitute of foundation as those which have been 
already refuted. 

Doctor Bowden asserts, on the authority of Dr.. 
Learnings that Calvin never was ordained; and re- 
presents that gentleman as having derived his infor- 
mation from Beza. The Doctor has fuffered him- 
self to be led astray, by an ignorant or dishonest 
guide. Beza says no such thing. On the contra- 
ry, after informing us that Calvin had frequentJy 
preached while he was yet a youth, in the commu- 
nion of the Church of Rome^ and that he did this, 
without having received any Popish orders ; Beza 
proceeds to state that he was set apart (designatus) 
to the ministry by the Presbytery of Geneva^ in the 
month of August, in the year 1536'!'. Besides^ 
even if there were no record establishing the time 

* Epht. ad qiiendam Curatum ; in Cahin. JEpist. ]\, 3B6. 
t See Beza's Life of Cahln, 



Testimony of Calviiu 207 

and place of his ordination, we might fairly presume 
that such a solemnity had taken place, because it 
was the general sentiment of the Reformers that 
ordination by the imposition of hands is both scrip- 
tural and necessary ; because this mode of consti- 
tuting the ministry is well known to have been the 
habit of the times ; because Calvin in his Institu* 
tions^ published only a few weeks before he went to 
Geneva^ expressly enjoins ordination in this man- 
ner ; and because, in the confession of the French 
Churches, which he drew up a short time after- 
wards, such ordination is declared to be essential to 
a regular ministry. Now is it credible, that Calvin^ 
when it was perfectly within his reach, would have 
suffered himself, under all the circumstances which 
have been mentioned, to be without that seal of 
office, which habit and public opinion imperiously 
demanded,/and which both before and after, he 
himself represented as so highly important ? It is 
not credible. We should be bound, on every prin- 
ciple of probability, to take for granted that he was 
regularly ordained, even if no hint had ever been 
given on the subject by a single writer. 

But we have other evidence that Calvin was re- 
gularly ordained. Junius^ the learned professor 
of Divinity in the University of Leydm^ before 
mentioned, who was a contemporary with Calvin^ 
explicitly states the fact. Bellarmine had asserted 
that, before Calvin^ Presbyters had not undertaken 
to ordain. Junius contradicts him ; asserts that 
the Reformers who preceded Calviiij held and prac- 



SG8 LETTER VII. 

tised Presbyterian ordination ; and declares that 
by some of these, " his predecessors, Cahm was 
himself ordained^." And Cardinal Bellarmine^ 
speaking of the validity of ordinations as perform- 
ed in the Protestant Churches, says, " Neither 
Luther^ nor Zuingle^ nor Calvin were Bishops^ but 
only Presbyters.^'* Neque Lutherus^ neque Zuin- 
glius^ neque Calvinus Episcopi fuerunt^ sed tantum 
Presbyteri'\. Neither the learning nor the talents 
of this celebrated Papist will be denied. He lived 
at the same time with Calvin^ and must have known 
his history ; and he had as strong temptation, as 
Dr. Bowdeii can have, to degrade both the perso- 
nal and eccle^astical character of that Reformer ; 
yet he explicitly concedes that he was reputed a 
Presbyter. 

But supposing the fact established that he never 
was ordained, either in the Presbyterian, the Epis- 
copal, or any other mode^ What then ? It has no 
more to do with the argument in question than 
with the remotest speculation in mathematical or 
physical science. Has Calvin been the ordainer of 
all Presbyterian ministers since he entered the 
Church ? Did he ever undertake, alone^ to ordain 
even a single minister? It is one of the numerous 
advantages of Presbyterianism that it affords much 



* Fr. yunii Animadversiones in £ellann» Controv, v. Lib. j. 
Cap. 3. 19. 

t BdloTTmn* Controv- v. Lib. Cap. 3, 



Testnnoiiy of Calvin. 309 

greater security against spurious ordinations, than 
Episcopacy. It vests the power of ordaining, 
not in a single man, but in a Presbytery ; so that 
a case can never occur, among us, in which a de- 
fect of ecclesiastical character in an individual, can 
vitiate an ordination. 

But Dr. Bowden not only denies that tliere rs 
any evidence that Calvin was ever ordained ; he 
even goes so far as to express a very serious doubt 
whether the Reformers ever considered him in the 
light of a minister at all. Instead of taking up 
your time to express my surprise at a suggestion 
so extraordinary, I shall content myself with pre- 
senting two or three testimonies, which will show 
how Calvin was viewed by contemporary English 
Divines. 

The celebrated Martyr, Philpot^ a very eminent 
Divine of the Church of England, who suffered 
for the truth in the reign of Queen Mary^ said to 
his Popish judges — " Which of you is able to an- 
" swer Calvin's Institutions^ who is Minister of 
" Geneva ? I am sure you blaspheme that godly 
" rnan^ '.\nd thsit godly Church where he is Mi?iister^ 
" as it is your church's condition, when you cannot 
^* answer men by learning, to oppress them widi 
'' blasphemies and false reports. For in the mat- 
'' ter of Predestination^ he (Calvin J is in no other 
'^ opinion than all the doctors of the Church be, 
'' agreeing with the Scriptures." On a subsequent 
examination he declared — " I allow the Church 
' oi Geneva^ and the doctrine of the same ; for it 



310 LETTER VII. 

" is unCj catholica^ et Apostolica^ and doth follow 
" the doctrines which the Apostles did preach : 
" and the doctrine taught and preached in King 
" Edwarif^ days was also according to the 
'' same*.'' 

Bishop JewePs opinion of Calvin and of Calvin^ 
ism will appear from the following declarations. 
His antagonist Harding^ a virulent Papist, is con- 
tinually reviling the Bishop as a disciple of Calvin^ 
and the English Protestants as Cahinists. The 
Bishop never disavows the charge, and repeatedly 
defends Calvin in terms of high respect. " Touch- 
** ing Mr. Cahin^^ says he, " it is a great wrong 
'' untruly to report so reverend a Father, and so 
^*' worthy an ornament of the Church of God. If 
*' you had ever known the order of the Church at 
^* Geneva^ and had seen four thousand people or 
^* more receiving the holy mysteries together at 
*' one communion, you could not, without great 
" shame and want of modesty, thus untruly have 
" published to the world that, by Mr. CalvirH^ 
*' doctrine, the sacraments of Christ are super- 
** fluousf.'' 

Bishop Hooper^ when he was imprisoned for 
his adherence to the truth, in the reign of Queen 
Marijy wrote in the most friendly and affectionate 
manner to Calvin^ addressing him in terms of pro- 
found respect for his ecclesiastical^ as well as hxsper-- 

* Book of Marty rs,Yo\, iii. Philpot^s Examinations. 
f JevicPs Defence of his Apology, Part ii. p. 188. 



Testimony of Calvin. 311 

sGnal character, and begging his^ and his Church's 
prayers. 

Bishop Hall^ though not a contemporary of Cal- 
vin^ yet lived so near his time, as to be perfectly 
acquainted with the light in which he was viewed 
by the English Reformers. Speaking of him, he 
says, " That the Latin or Western Church, subject 
" to the Romish tyranny (unto the very times of 
^ Luther J was a true Church, in which a saving 
'• profession of the truth of Christ was found, our 
" learned Dr. Field hath saved me the labour to 
'^ prove, by the suffrages of our best and most re* 
" nowned Divines, among whom he cites Calvin^ 
" Bucer^ Melancthon^ Beza^ ^c.^^ Here Bishop 
Hall not only acknowledges the illustrious Refor- 
mer of Geneva J as one of the best and most renown^ 
ed of Divines ; but even places him at the head of 
the list ! 

Dr. Bowden asserts, that soon after the Refor- 
mation commenced in England^ Calvin made an 
officious offer of his services, to aid the cause in 
that country ; that the English Reformers, know- 
ing his " arrogant'' and *^ tyrannical" spirit ** civil- 
ly rejected his offer ;'' and that this " displeased 
*-^ him to such a degree, that although he had be- 
" fore spoken handsome things of the Church of 
^' England^ yet from that time he began to say 
'^ harsh things of her.'* Here again, I am com- 
pelled to say, Dr. Bowden shows himself to be en- 
tirely unacquainted with facts i and with facts too, 



312 LETTER Vir. 

which he might have learned from his own his- 
torians. 

The truth is, the services of Calvin in the cause 
of the Reformation, instead of being obtrusively 
and officiously offered by him, were expressly and 
warmly solicited by Archbishop Cranmer. This is 
attested so decidedly by the most impartial histo- 
rians, that the only wonder is, how a gentleman of 
Dr. Bowden^s character, could stoop to be the re- 
tailer of so stale a calumny as the opposite story un- 
questionably is. In the reign of Edward VI, as 
Strype tells us, Archbishop Cranmer having formed 
a plan of drawing up a book of articles, which 
should comprehend every thing essential relating 
to faith and practice, and in which all Protestants 
might unite ; sent letters to Calvin^ Bullmger^ and 
Melancthon^ disclosing his pious design, and request- 
ing " their counsel and furtherance." Calvin wrote 
repeatedly and freely to the Archbishop on this 
subject ; and, in the course of his correspondence, 
took the liberty of gendy imputing blame to Cran- 
mer for not having made greater progress in the 
Reformation. Cranmer does not appear, however, 
to have been at all offended with Calvin for this 
freedom, but retained a high esteem and value for 
him, and kept up an affectionate intercourse with 
him to the end of life*. 

Archbishop Cranmer^ not only kept up a friend- 
ly communication with Calvin^ as long as he lived ; 

* Strype's Memorials cf Cranmer, p. 407—411. 



Testimony of Cahiru SIS' 

but he also constantly consulted hinn, on all the lead- 
ing questions connected with the Reformation. On 
a certain occasion, Calvin dispatched a messenger 
to E7igland^ with Letters to the Duke of Somerset^ 
and likewise to King Edward^ to whom he present- 
ed, at the same time, a volume of his Commentary, 
just before published, and dedicated to the King. 
Both the King and his Council were much gratifi- 
ed with this communication ; and Archbishop 
Cranmer^ in particular, was so much pleased, as to 
send word to Cah'in^ that he could do nothing 
more profitable to the Church, than to write often 
to the King*. 

Nor is this all. Calvin was not only respectfully 
consulted by the English Reformers ; but he had 
also much influence among them. That great de- 
ference was paid to his judgment, will appear from 
this fact, that on the first appearance of the English 
Liturgy^ it i^rtsoxih^d praying for the dead^ chrism^ 
extreme unction^ and other Popish superstitions. 
These Calvin^ in a letter to the Protector^ very 
frankly and decidedly blamed. The consequence 
of which was, that all these offensive things w^ere 
left out, agreeably to his advice. Dr. Heylin him- 
self declares that these alterations were made in 
compliance with Calvin^s wishes. — " The first Z/*- 
" t^^gy%^ says he, " was discontinued, and the se- 
^^ cond superinduced upon it, to give satisfaction 

* Strypt^s Memorials of Cranmer, p. 413. Also Chrhtian 
Observer^ Vol. iii. p. 628. 

2 D 



514 LETTER VII. 

" unto Calvin^s cavils, the curiosities of some, and 
*' the mistakes of others, his friends and follow- 
" ers*." And Dr. Nichols gives us the same in- 
formation. " Four years afterwards," says he, 
*' the Book of Common Prayer underwent another 
" review ; wherein some ceremonies and usages 
'' were laid aside, and some new prayers added, 
*' at the instance of Mr. Calvin of Geneva^ and 
" Bucery a foreign Divine, who was invited to be a 
" Professor at Cambridge^.'^^ 

Nor was the authority of Calvin without its in- 
fluence, in drawing up the Articles of the Church 
of England. It is commonly said, by our Episco- 
pal brethren, that those Articles are anti-Calvink' 
tic ; and that especially on the doctrine of Predes* 
tination^ as exhibited in the seventeenth Article, 
the Reformers held, and meant to express, a diffe- 
rent opinion from that of Calvin* Now it happens 
that this article itself bears the most unquestionable 
internal evidence of the contrary. The qualifying 
clause toward the end of it, which has been 
quoted as decisive proof that the framers reject- 
ed Calvinism^ is nearly copied from CalvirH^ In* 
stitutes; and the latter part of it is a literal transla- 
tion of that Reformer's caution against the abuse 
of this doctrine. For evidence of the former, see 
his Institutes iii. 2. 4. 5. compared with the article. 
For proof of the latter, read the following — Pro^ 

* History of the Presbyt. p. 12. 207. 

t Comment, on the Book of Coin. Prayer^ Pref, f . 5. 



Testimony of Calvin. 515 

hide^ i/i rebus agendis^ ea est nobis per spicienda Dei 
voluntas quam verbo suo declarat. Instit. !• 17. 5. 
" Furthermore, in our doings, that will of God is 
" to be followed, which we have expressly declared 
" to us in the word oi God.'^'^ Art. 17th. 

Of the point of light in which Calvin and his . 
opinions were viewed by the leading Divines of 
the Church oi England^ during the reigns of Eliza^ 
heth^ and James I, the following attestation by Dr. 
Heylin^ a bitter enemy, affords the most unques- 
tionable evidence. " It cannot be denied but that, 
" by the error of these times, the reputation which 
" Calvin had attained to in both Universities, and 
" the extreme diligence of his followers, there was 
" a general tendency unto his opinions ; his Book 
'^ of Institutes being, for the most part, the foun- 
" dation on which the young divines of those days 
" did build their studies^." Again he declares, 
" Of any men who publicly opposed the Calvinian 
" tenets, in the University of Oxford^ till after the 
" beginning of King Jameses reign, I must confess 
'' that I have hitherto found no good assurance.*' 
He speaks of two divines, of inferior note, who 
secretly propagated other principles; and com- 
pares these to the Prophet Elijah^ who considered 
himself as left alone to oppose a whole world of 
idolaters. Further ; in the reign of Charles I, 
more than 60 years after the final setding of the 
Articles, when a suppression of the Calvinistic 

* See Heylin's ^tinq. Hist. Works, p. 626, &c 



516 LETTER VII. 

doctrines was contemplated by Archbishop LaUdy 
Dr. Heylin acknowledges, that such was the gene* 
ral attachment of the Bishops and Clergy to these 
doctrines, that the Arminian party did not dare to 
" venture the determining of these points to a 
Convocation," And he again explicitly informs 
us, that, from the resettling of the Church under 
Queen Elizabeth^ to the period already mentioned, 
*•* the maintainers of the anti-Calvinian doctrines 
were but^^^ in number, and made but a very thin 
appearance^." In short, the sum of his represent 
tation, compared with other historians, is, that for 
60 years after the Articles were settled, only four 
or Jive anti-Calvinistic divines appeared, in both 
Universities, and the whole nation ; that out of this 
number three were actually punished for propaga- 
ting their opinions ; and that the rest only saved 
themselves by silence, and discretionf ! 

The celebrated Hooker would have abhorred 
the thought of joining with Dr. Boxtrden and Mr. 
How in their aspersions of Calvin. That truly 
great man, with all his Episcopal prejudices, speak- 
ing of the Reformer oi Geneva^ thus expresses him- 
self. " I think him the wisest man that ever the 
" French Church did enjoy, since the hour it en- 
** joyed him. His bringing up was in the study 
** of the civil law. Divine knowledge he gathered, 
** not by hearing or reading, so much as by teach- 

• See Meyl'iTi't ^inq. Hi&t, Worh. p. 626, 8cc. Sec allSfii- 
his Life of Laud, 147. 

f Sec Overton'jf True Churchman,]).. 81, 82., 83. 



Tesiimony of Lalvhi. 517 

ing others. For though thousands were debtors 
" to him, as touching knowledge in that kind ; yet 
" he to none, but only to God, the author of that 
^^ most blessed fountain, the Book of Life ; and of 
" the admirable dexterity of wit, together with the 
" helps of other learning, which were his guides." 
In another place, Hooker speaks of Calvin as " a 
worthy vessel of God's glory." And again he re- 
marks, " Two things of principal moment there 
" are, which have deservedly /procuvtd him honour 
" thoughout the world; the one his exceeding pains 
*' in composing the Institutions of Christian Reli^ 
" gion; the other, his no less industrious travails 
" for exposition of Holy Scripture according unto 
" the same Institutions^ ^"^ 

Bishop Carleton in his Examination of Monta^ 
gne^s Appeal^ printed in 1626, and dedicated to 
Charles I, says, p. 97. " As for Calvin^ his name 
'* and doctrines arc made odious ; but why, I know 
*' not. What greater pleasure can a man procure 
** to the enemies of the truths than to speak evil 
" and odiously of those men whose service God 
" hath used, and made them excellent instruments 
" to make the truth known unto us ? Some take 
^' it for a sign of looking toward Popery^ when the 
" members of our own Church offer such a service to 
" the Papists, as to speak evil of tkem that have 
** been the greatest enemies of Popery, the greatest 
" propagators of the frw^A." 

• JPrefac€ to his Ecclesiastical PolitVo 
2 D 2 



5!8 LETTER VIw 

Dr. Hakervell^ chaplain of Charles I, while 
Prince oiWaleSy in a work addressed to Dr. Carier, 
a Papist, says, p. 135. " One of the main points 
** you drive at is, to put us off from all fellowship, 
" and communion with those Churches who ac- 
*' knowledge Calvin to have been an excellent in- 
** strument of God, in abolishing and suppressing of 
^* Popery, and the clearing and spreading of his 
" truth ; that so, being separated from them, we 
" may either stand single, and be encountered alone^ 
*' or return again to our old bias, and relapse unto 
" Home; and so, through Calvin^s sides, you strike 
*' at the throat and heart of our Religion.** 

Dr. Joshua Hoyl^ Professor of Divinity in Trin- 
ity College, Dublin, in the reign of Charles I, in his 
Rejoinder to Mr. Malone*s Reply on the Real Pre^ 
sence^ dedicated to Archbishop Ushcr^ in p. 654, 
&c. says- — " That great instrument of God's glory, 
John Calvin J a man of whom I had almost said, as 
once it was of Moses^ there arose not a prophet 
since like him in Israel^ nor since the Apostles* 
days was before him — His works shall praise him 
for wit, eloquence^ fulness, and soundness of 
divinity.** 

On this part of the subject I shall content myself 
with one witness more. A clergyman of the 
Church of England^ now living, who writes in the 
Christian Observer^ in speaking of the disposition 
of many in his own Church, to vilify the name and 
opinions of Calvin^ makes the following remarks. — 
^* Few names stand higher, or in more deserved 



Testi77iony of Calvin. 31^ 

" pre-eminence, amongst the wise and pious mem- 
" bers of the English Church, than that of Bishop 
" Andrews. His testimony to the memory of Cal- 
" vin is, that he was ' an illustrious Person, and ne- 
" ver to be mentioned without a preface of the 
** highest honour/ Whoever examines into the 
*' sermons, writings, &c. of our Divines, in the 
" reign of Elizabeth^ and y antes I, will continual- 
^' ly meet with epithets of honour with which 
" his name is mentioned ; the learned^ the zuise^ 
** the judicious^ the pious Calvin^ are expressions 
" every where to be found in the remains of those 
*' times. It is well known that his Institutes were 
" read and -studied in the Universities^ by every 
" student in divinity^ for a considerable portion of 
" of a century ; nay, that by a Convocation held 
^* at Oxfordy that book was recommended to the 
" general study of the nation* So far was the 
^* Church of England^ and her chief divines from 
" countenancing that unbecoming and absurd treat- 
*' ment, with which the name of this eminent Pro- 
*' testant is now so frequently dishonoured, that it 
*' would be no difficult matter to prove, that there 
" is not, perhaps, a parallel instance upon record, 
''*' of any single individual being equally and so un- 
'' equivocally venerated, for the union of wis- 
" dom and piety, both in England^ and by a 
" large body of the foreign Churches, as John 
^^ Calvin. Nothing but ignorance of the ecclesias- 
^* tical records of those times, or resolute preju^ 
^* dice^ could cast a cloak of concealment over this 



^20 LETTER VII. 

" fact. It has been evidenced, by the combined 
*"' testimony both of enemies and friends to his 
" system of doctrines^." 

Dr. Bowden^not content with aspersing the opin^ 
ions of Calvin^ goes further, and attacks, with great 
apparent cordiality, his personal character. Be- 
sides a number of reproachful epithets, which the 
Dr. throws out in various parts of his work, the 
following passage occurs toward the close. Letter 
20. " The return of Calvin evinced the gentle sway 
^' of Presbytery. CasteUio^ (he probably means 
*' Castalio^) a man of great learning, was soon ex- 
^' pelled, at the instigation of the Reformer. A 
*' violent contest then took place between him and 
" the Senate, about the election of a minister. It 
*^ produced almost sedition. Cahin^^ quarrels with 
" Perinus proceeded to such a length that the Coun- 
*^* cil became furious against one another. And 
*' what do you think was the cause of it? Why 
" Periiius thought it no harm to recreate himself 
*' now and then with dancing. But Calvin^ al- 
" though no Bishop, played the tyrant, and forbad 
" that amusement upon pain of excommunication. 
** Perinus was not to be treated in that manner. 
" He opposed such tyranny ; and two of the mi- 
" nisters who joined with him, were turned out of 
** their livings. The contention became general 
" throughout the city, and the Council, taking dif- 
" ferent sides, almost cut one another's throats. 

* Christian Observer , Vol. ii.p. 143. 



testimony of Calvin. 321 

** One person was put to death for libelling Calvin. 
" Another was banished the city for preaching 
^* against Predestination. Servetus was burned 
" for heresy. So much for the mother Church of 
" Presbytery." 

It is easy, in half a line, to convey a slander 
which it would require several pages to expose. I 
cannot help regretting that Dr. Boxvden has permit- 
ted himself to believe and to retail all the unfound- 
ed charges against Calvin^ which were first propa- 
gated by malice, and which ignorance and preju- 
dice have, ever since, continued to repeat. It is 
impossible here to enter into a full refutation of these 
charges. I can only suggest a few hints for aiding 
those who have a disposition further to pursue the 
inquiry. 

With respect to the case of Castalio^ it is thus re- 
lated by M. Seiinebier^ one of the most respectable 
biographers of Calvin^ and whose testimony is en- 
titled to the more credit, as he was an opponent of 
that Reformer's religious principles. ^' Calvin 
'* knew Castalio at Strasbiirg^ in 1539. He pro- 
^* cured for him the place of Regent in Geneva^ in 
'' 1543. This man, who was a good humanist, 
*^ but an extravagant theologian, translated the Bi- 
^* ble into Latin. He endeavoured to make the 
*' Hebrews speak the language of Cicero ; and even 
^' essayed to make them sometimes sigh the ten- 
** der verses of Ovid. On this account Calvin 
** strongly blamed his version, together with diffe* 
*"* rent $entimepts which this singular man did not 



322 LETTER VII. 

" fear to advance. Castalio^ feeling hurt, demand- 
" ed of the Council permission to dispute publicly 
" with Calvin on the descent of Jesus Christ into 
*' hell. They refused him this permission. But 
*' from love to truth, and from regard to liberty of 
*' thought, they permitted him to open this dispute 
" before the assembly of ministers. It continued 
" a long time without any success. Castalio wzs 
" so irritated, that he attacked Calvin in a Sermon 
*^ destined to resolve the objections that could be 
" opposed to the doctrine which he had taught; 
" and he so grossly insulted the ministers oiGene^ 
" va^ that the Council deposed him from the holy 
" ministry, and took from him the place of Regent. 
** Castalio retired to Easily where he persisted in 
" his extraordinay sentiments, and in his hatred 
" of Calvin, until his death^.'' 

The conduct of Calvin^ in the case of Perrin^ is 
thus stated, by the same writer. *' Calvin^ in the 
" exercise of discipline, saw only the man who 
^^ had violated his duties, in the man in office, who 
" had believed that he might be dispensed from 
" them. He caused to be cited before the Con- 
'' sistory the wife of the Captain-General, Ami 
" Perrin^ who had danced^ acted in a comedy^ and 
" blasphemed in a particular house. ' Ami Perrin 
" himself, whose life was very irregular^ was ex- 
" communicated, deprived of his office of counsel- 
" lor, and condemned to two months imprison- 

• Scnnebier's Histoire Liter aire de Geneve^ Tora. i. p. 196, 

197- 



Testimony of Calvin^ Z23 

" ttient. But, though this man had always instiga- 
*' ted the enemies of Calvin ; though he had caus- 
*' ed all the difficulties ih^t Calvin experienced at 
" Geneva from the government ; Calvin^ neverthe- 
" less, employed his eloquence and his influence to 
'^ cause the judgment against him to be annulled; 
" and had the christian satisfaction of seeing his 
'' mortal enemy restored to his offices, and delive- 
" red from prison^." 

" One person," says Dr. B. " was put to death 
for libelling Calvin^ This wonderful assertion re- 
fers to the case oi James Gruet^ who was beheaded 
July 26, 154r. He was a man notorious for his 
vice and profligacy — He, of course, hated Calvin^ 
and abused him in the most violent manner. But 
this was not the cause of his death. In his sen- 
tence he is condemned, " For having spoken with 
'' contempt of religion ; for having maintained 
" that divine and human laws were the work of ca* 
*^ price ; for haying written impious letters^ and //- 
" bertine verses ; for having maintained that yirnf- 
'* cation was not criminal, when the two parties 
" were agreed; for having laboured to overturn 
^* ecclesiastical ordinances, and to shake by a peti- 
" tion the authority of the Consistory ; for having 
^' threattned the Reformers and ministers, and ha- 
" ving spoken ill of them, especially of Cakin ; for 
" having written letters calculated to irritate the 
" court of France against Calvin, and having en- 

♦ Senneb. Lit. Mist. i. 200. 



324 LETTER VII. 

" gaged the King of France to write to the Coun- 
" cil against him ; and, finally, for having threat- 
" ened the Council itself*." Do you not ad- 
mire the candour and impartiality of Doctor EoxV'* 
den ? 

1'he Doctor proceeds — *' Another was banish- 
" ed the city for preaching against Predestination.'^ 
This was the noted Jerome Bolsec^ of whom Dr. 
Watkins^ an Episcopal clergyman, in his Biogra-^ 
phical Dictionary^ gives the following account,— 
*' He was an infamous renegado, who, from being 
""^ a Carmelite^ turned Protestant, practised for some 
" time as a physician, and married. He went to 
^^ Geneva^ and abandoned physic for theology ; but 
*' having avowed the doctrines of Pelagius in a 
'' public discourse, which was answered by Cb/- 
** vin on the spot, the magistrates, on account of his 
" turbulent conduct, banished him from the city : 
" on which he retired to Berne, where he raised a 
^' great deal of disturbance, and was then driven 
" from that city. He returned after this to France, 
** and went back to his old communion (that of 
" Some ;J and, by way of showing the sincerity of 
^' his conversion, wrote what he called the Lives 
*' of Theodore Beza, and John Calvin, filled with 
'* the blackest falsehoods, and expressed in the 
*^ most abusive language. He lived in a profligate 
*' manner, and suffered his wife to prostitute her- 
" self for gain." Sennebier also informs us that 

V* Lit, Hist I. 20^ 



Testimo72i/ of Calvvu 325 

Bolsec^ having adopted the sentiments of Pelagius^ 
came to publish them at Geneva as a missionary. 
He was censured by the ministers, and banished 
by the Council, after useless attempts to silence 
him. — This is the man whose part Doctor Bozvden^ 
more than once, indirectly takes, for the purpose of 
blackening the character of the venerable Calvin I 

The case of Servetus^ which has furnished to 
the revilers of Cabin 2i favourite therue of decla- 
mation, for near two hundred years, Dn Bowden 
could not have been expected either to forget, or 
to pass in silence. He has noticed it in the usual 
style ; and charged it to the " tyrannical spirit" of 
Calvin^ and the ^* gentle sway of Presbytery." On 
this accusation I will only offer the following remarks* 
First; it has never been shown that the 
death of Servettis can be justly imputed to Calvin* 
Sennebier^ though no Calvinist^ assures us that the 
imputation is a cruel calumny ; that the bitterest 
enemies of Calvin^ who were contemporary with 
him, did not dare to advance it; and that it has 
been since repeated and believed, only by those 
who were ignorant of facts. He declares that CaU 
vin^ so far from desiring the death of this arch- 
heretic, was anxious to prevent it ; that he warned 
him against coming to Geneva^^Lud apprized him, that 
if he did come thither, he would probably lose his 
life ; which he concluded must be the case from 
the spirit of the laws and government of that city. 
This writer further asserts, that the Council of 
Geneva, before passing sentence on Servetusy asked 
2 E 



'o26 LETTER VII. 

the advice of the Swiss Cantons, who unanimously 
exhorted them to put him to death. And, finally, 
he informs us, that after sentence had been passed 
on Servetusy Calvm laboured to procure a mitiga- 
tion of it, but without effect ; and that he sincerely 
deplored his fate^'. If this statement be true, and 
the author supports it by a reference to undoubted 
authorities ; then the representation of Dr. BoW'^ 
deny or rather of those revilers of Calvin whom he 
has followed, is something worse than ungenerous. 
But, Secondly ; supposing the fact to be as Doctor 
Borvden insinuates. Supposing it established that 
Calvin fully approved^ and even procured the death 
of Servetus ; still it was evidently not so much the 
fault of the man^ as the universal delusion of the 
age in which he lived; an age in which liberty of 
conscience was not at all, either understood or ad- 
mitted, by any denomination of Christians ; and 
in which the most pious, benevolent, and exemplary 
men, were more or less chargeable with error on 
this point. It is certain that Bucer^ Oecolampadius^ 
Beza^ and even the mild and gentle Melancthon^ ap- 
proved the sentence that was executed on Servetus\. 
It is certain that Archbishop Cranmer^ and the 
great body of the English Reformers, were deci- 
dedly of the opinion that he ought to have suffered 
deathj. And it is equally undeniable, that the 
pious and excellent Bishop Hall^ solemnly pro- 

* Lit. Hist, cle Geneve, Tom. i. p. 204, &.c. 

I Se7inebier. Also MelancthorH s Epistles* 

^ See History of Popery, Loiul. 4to. Vol. ii. p. 3'5'2. 



Testimony of Calvin^ 327 

nounced, that, in that transaction, Calvin did well 

APPROVE HIMSELF TO God's ChURCH^. To FC- 

proach Calvin^ therefore, for not possessing that light 
which no man of his age possessed ; to attempt to fix 
a stigma upon his memory for an error into which 
he fell in common with all the best of his contem- 
poraries, is certainly as unreasonable as it is unjust. 
But, ji Rally ; why do Dr. Borvden and his 
friends take so much delight in reproaching Ca/- 
vin for a single supposed instance of persecu- 
tion? And why do they take so much pains 
to make it believed that the death of Servetus was 
the native product of the " spirit of Presbyterian- 
ism ?" Have these gentleman forgotten the histo- 
ry of the Church oi England? Or do they suppose 
that xve have forgotten it ? Have they lost all 
recollection of the conduct of their boasted favour- 
ites, Archbishops Cranmer^ Whitgift^ and Laud^ to 
say nothing of other eminent dignitaries of that 
Church ? Or do they imagine that our memories 
are as politely accommodating as their own ? Cal^ 
vin is only charged with bringing one unhappy vic- 
tim to the stake ; and even this is a false charge. 
But it is acknowledged, even by Episcopal histo- 
rians themselves, that the pious and excellent Cra;z- 
tner^ was active in dragging at leastyiwr persons to 
the flames, of whom two were xvomen. In the 
reign of Henry VIII, the Archbishop is expressly 
said, by Strype and Burnet^ to have been concern- 

* See his Christian Moderation, Book ii. Sect. 14. Works ^ 
VoL iij. p. 50. 



328 XETTER VII. 

€cl In burning John Lambert^ and Anne Askexv^ for 
those very principles which he himself afterwards 
embraced*. And in the reign of Edward VI, he 
is confessed, by the same historians, to have " pro- 
cured the death," (as one of them expresses it,) of 
Joanna Bocher^ and George Paris. The King was 
opposed to the execution of these persons, and 
signed the warrants for their execution with tears 
in his eyes, telling Cranmer that he did it in com- 
pliance with his persuasion, and in submission to 
bis ecclesiastical authority ; and that if it was 
wrong, he, (the Archbishop,) must answer for it to 
Godf. In this representation, the Episcopal bio- 
grapher, Mr. Gilpin^ in his Uves of the Reformers^ 
concurs. " Joan Bocher^^ says he, " and George 
" Paris were accused, one for denying the human^ 
" ity of Christ ; the other for denying his divinity » 
" They were both tried and condemned to the 
" stake ; and the Archbishop not only consented to 
'* these acts of blood ; hMttv^n persuaded iht aver- 
*' sion of the young King into a compliance. Your 
*i Majesty must distinguish, (said he, informing his 
" royal pupil's conscience,) between common opin- 
" ions, and such as are the essential articles of faith. 
^^ These latter we must, on no account, suffer to be 
'• opposed^." 

*Cranmer's Memorials, B )ok i. Cii ap. 17. p. 65. Bishop 
Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. ii. p. 112. 

t Mist, JRef u. 112. 

^ The Lives of Reformers, By WHUctm Gilpin, M. A, Vd. 
II. p. 99, 



Testimony of Calvin. 329 

Bat It is gratifying to know, that Presbyterians, 
instead of delighting to load Cranmer with reproach, 
for these instances of misguided zeal, have always 
treated his memory with a respectful generosity. 
They have seldom failed to charge this part of his 
conduct to the delusion of the age^ and not to the 
heart of the man ; and have been ready to acknow- 
ledge, in the strongest terms, his excellent quali- 
ties, and his noble services to the Church of Christ. 
And it is but justice to add, that the Bishops and 
other leading divines of England^ who were con* 
temporary with Calvin^ or who lived half a century 
after him, always treated his character with similar 
respect and affection, nor ever lisped a syllable in 
the strain of Dr. Bowden* To what are we to as- 
cribe the different representation which is now so 
fashionable, and so industriously propagated among 
our Episcopal brethren ? How shall we account 
for it, that gentlemen who abound in unqualified 
praises of Cranmer^ and even of Laud^ are not 
ashamed continually to reproach the memory of 
Calvin^ with conduct in which they went far beyond 
him ? Can charity herself avoid suspecting, that 
it is the man himself who is hated, more than his 
alleged persecuting spirit P 

Dr. Boxvden and Mr. Hczv both throw out many 
reflections on that system of doctrine which is gen- 
erally called Calvinism. The latter, in particular, 
speaks of it as a " detestable" system, of which he 
has no language adequately to express his '' abhor- 
2 E2 



330 LETTER VII. 

fence." It was my original intention to devotef a 
whole letter to the consideration of this greatly 
misunderstood and abused system of truth. But 
having been already carried so much beyond the 
limits at first prescribed to this reply, I dare not so 
far tresspass on your patience as to enter into the for- 
mal discussion of a subject, which has engaged the 
attention of the strongest heads and best hearts 
that the world ever knew ; and a subject as awful 
and difficult as it is interesting. 

I cannot forbear, however, to state a few facts.. 
And when these are calmly considered, I think your 
surprise at the conduct of these gentlemen, will by 
no means be diminished* 

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of Eng^ 
land^re undoubtedly Cahinistic. This is proved, 
not only by the bare inspection of the Articles them* 
selves ; but also by the known sentiments of those 
who formed them ; and by the decisive interpreta- 
tion of some of the ablest Bishops, and other di- 
rines, that ever adorned that Church^. 

The same Contiocation which drew up the Thir^ 
ty-nine ArticieSy reviewed^ corrected,, formally ap- 
proved, and ordered to be published, as it now 

* See Overton's True Churchmun, passim. I know that 
this writer has made some mistakes. But when his work is 
compared with the able Ecvievi of it m the Christian Gbser^ 
^•er, an Episcopal Journal ; and also with Mr. Daubeny's an- 
swer j and the Review of the latter, in the same Journal, the 
mass of evidence in support of my position wiUbe found ir« 
resistible. 



Testimony of Calvin, 331 

gtands, the celebrated Catechism of Dr. NoxvelL 
This Catechism is acknowledged, by the worst ene- 
mies of Calvin^ to be decidedly Cahinistic. It is 
acknowledged to be so by Bishop Cleaver^ who, a 
few years ago, gave a new edition of it. And yet 
the Convocation, which embraced all the principal 
dignitaries of the Church, pubhcly recommended 
it, as " a standing summary of the doctrines pro- 
fessed in that Church ;" and many years after 
it was held in such high esteem, by Archbi- 
shops Whitgift and Parker^ and other cotemporary 
Prelates, that even ministers were enjoined to study 
it, that they might " learn true divinity from it^." 

The illustrious Reformer, and Martyr, Bradford^ 
a short time before he suffered, wrote and publish- 
ed a decidedly Calviiiistic work on Election and 
Predestination^ which he sent to Archbishop Cran^ 
mer^ and to Bishops Ridley and Latimer^ who all 
gave it their approbation ; after which it received 
the approbation of ^^ the rest of the eminent mi- 
♦* nisters in and about London\.^'* 

The famous Lambeth Articles^ formed in the 
reign of Queen Elizabeth^ are acknowledged by all 
who ever read them, to be among the most strong- 
ly Calvinistical compositions that ever were penned. 
Yet these articles were drawn up and signed by 

* Strype's Annals, 313—315— X//^e of Parker, 122, 301. 

I Strype*s Memorials •/ Cranmer, p. 350. The Editors 
of the Christian Observer attest that they have seen Brad- 
ford's treatise, and that it is unquestionably Cahinistic. 



S32 LETTER VII. 

Archbishop Whitgift^ that very Prelate of whose 
character and principles Dr. Hobart frequently 
speaks in the most exalted terms, and whom he 
holds up to view as one of the most illustrious di- 
vines and fathers of the Church oi England. — The 
Archbishop was assisted in this service by the Bi- 
shops of London and Bangor^ and by some others. 
After recieving the public approbation of these dig- 
nitaries, the Articles were sent to the Archbishop 
of Tork^ and the Bishop of Rochester^ who also sub- 
scribed them. Thus ratified, Archbishop Whtt» 
gift sent them to the University of Cambridge^ with 
a letter, in which he declared, " That these Arti- 
*■' cles were not to be considered as laws and de^ 
*' creesy but 2is propositions^ which he and his breth- 
" ren were persuaded were true^ and correspond" 
" i/2g with the doctrine professed in the Church 
" of England^ and established by the laws of the 
" land*.'' Nor is this all. It having been sug- 
gested by some, that the Archbishop agreed to 
these articles, rather for the sake oi peace ^ than be* 
cause he believed thtvti ; Strype^ his Episcopal bio- 
grapher, repels the charge with indignation ; de- 
claring that such an insinuation is i\sfalse^ as it is 
mean and disparaging to the Primatef . 

We have seen also, in a foregoing part of this 
Letter, by the confession of Heylin himself, an im- 
placable enemy of Calvin^ that the great body of 

* Strype's Life of Whitgift^ p. 461—463. 
t Ibid, p, 462. 



Testimony of Calvin* '335- 

the Bishops and other clergy of the Church of Eng' 
iand^ w tVQ doctrinal CahinistSy for more than half 
a century after the articles were formed. And we 
have found a modern Episcopal clergyman assert- 
ing, on undeniable evidence, that " Cahin^s InstitU' 
" tions were read and studied, in both the Uni- 
" versities, by every student in divinity, for a con- 
*' siderable portion of a century ; nay, that by a 
^' Convocation held at Oxford^ that Book was re- 
*' commended to the general study of the nation/' 
All the Delegates from the Church of England 
to the Synod of Dort^ among whom were Bishop 
Carleton^ Bishop Hall^ and Bishop Davenant^ for- 
mally subscribed to the five Calvin'istic Articles 
drawn up and adopted by that venerable Synod. 
On their return home, they were attacked by a cer- 
tain writer, and charged with having given counte- 
nance to error, and also with having departed from 
the public standards of their own Church. Against 
this attack they thought proper to defend them- 
selves, and accordingly wrote a Joint Attestation^ 
which contains the following passage. " What- 
*' soever there was assented unto, and subscribed 
^* by us, concerning the jfft;e art ides ^ either in the 
" joint synodical judgment, or in our particular 
" collegiate suffrage, is not only warrantable by the 
" holy Scriptures, but also conformable to the re* 
'^ ceived doctrine of our said venerable Mother ; 
" which we are ready to maintain and justify 
" against all gainsayers*." 

* Sc^\ht\T Joint Attestatien. 



334 LETTER VII. 

Again, Bishop Hall^ in a work of his own, ad- 
dressing some who had charged him and other 
Bishops of his day, with entertaining Arminian sen- 
timents as to the doctrine oi Election^ thus in- 
dignantly replies to the charge — " You add, " Elec^ 
" tion upon faith foreseen.'*^ What ! nothing but 
'' gross untruths ? Is this the doctrine of the Bi- 
" shops of England? Have they not strongly con-^ 
** futed it, in Papists and Arminians^ ? Have they 

" not CRIED IT DOWN TO THE LOWEST PIT OF 
" HELLf ?" 

The same pious Prelate himself tells us, that, 
after his return from the Synod of Dort^ where he 
had been an advocate of Cahiniatic doctrine, and a 
warm opponent of Arminianismy he was distressed 
to find that heresy gaining ground in England. 
*^ Not many years," says he, *' after setriing 
^* at home, it grieved my soul to see our own 
" Church begin to sicken of the same disease^ 
" which we had endeavoured to cure in our neigh- 
'' boursj.'' 



* It seems, then, that Bishop Hall was not only a Calvin- 
a?6'* himself; but that he considered the body of English Bi- 
shops, until his time, as having- been Calvinists also. But 
perhaps Dr. Bon.\iden and Mr. Ho'-oj understand this matter 
better than the good Bishop ! 

t Defence of the Hwinble Me7iionstrance, Works. Vol. iji, 
246. 

+ Soitne. Specialities of the Life of yoseph Hall, Bishop of 
Norivich, written by himself— -Prefixed to the 3d. vol. of his 

jr&rh. 



Testimony of Calvm. 335 

If all this be noc conclusive testimony, that the 
Thirtif^nine Articles^ which Mr. Hgzv has recently 
subscribed, are Cahinistic ; that the Reformers 
were Cahinistic ; and that the great body of the 
English Bishops and other Clergy, were Cahinistic 
until the time of Archbishop Laud^ then I know 
not what evidence can be called conclusive. And 
yet, Mr. Hoxu^ with the highest praises of those 
Articles, and Reformers, and Prelates, and Clergy, 
in his mouth, does not scruple to spenk of Cahin- 
hm in language which could scarcely be more con- 
temptuous, or more abhorrent, if it were acknow- 
ledged to be a system of the most undisguised blas- 
phemy ! I am happy that it is not incumbent on 
me, either to account for this fact, or to frame an 
apology for it. 

But you will, perhaps, ask, are there no diffcuU 
ties to be encountered in embracing that system of 
evangelical truth, which is usually styled Cahin" 
2sm P It ought not to be disguised that there are 
in this system real difficulties, w^hich, probably, no 
human wisdom will ever be able to solve. But 
are the difficulties which belong to the sj'stem of 
Arminianism^ either fewer in num.ber, or less in 
magnitude ? Instead of this, they are more nume- 
rous, and more serious ; more contradictory to rea- 
son, more inconsistent with the character of God, 
and more directly opposed both to the letter and 
the spirit of his word. I rest in the Cahinistic sys- 
tem, with a confidence daily increasing, not only 
because the more I examine it, the more clearly it 



336 LETTER VIT. 

appears to me to be taught In the Holy Scriptures ; 
but also because, the more frequently and the more 
carefully I compare the amount of the difficulties, 
on both sides, the more heavily they seem to me to 
press^igainst the Arm'mian doctrine. 

It is easy and popular to object, that Calvin- 
ism h^s a tendency to cut the nerves of all spiritual 
exertion ; that, if we are elected^ there is no needoi 
exertion, and if not elected, it will be in vain. But 
this objection lies with quite as much force against 
the Arminian hypothesis. Dr. Bowden^ and Mr. 
How^ and all Arrnmians^ though they reject the 
doctrine of Election^ explicitly grant that, while 
some will, in fact, be saved, others will, in fact, as 
certainly perish. Now it is perfectly plain that this 
position i* just as liable to the abuse above stated, 
as the Calvinistic doctrine. For a man may say, 
'^ I shall either be saved, or I shall not . If I am 
^' to be saved, no anxiety about it is necessary ; 
'' and if I am to perish, all anxiety about it will be 
" useless.'' Would these gentlemen consider this 
objection as a valid one against their creed ? I pre- 
sume not. But it has no more validity against ours* 
Another objection is equally common and popular. 
It is said, if none but the elect will be saved, how 
can God be considered as sincere in making the 
offers of mercy to all? The Arminian is just as 
much bound to answer this question as the Calvin- 
ist. He grants that all men will not, in fact, be sa- 
ved ; he grants, moreover, that God foreknew this 
from eternity ; and that he not' only foreknew the 



testimony of Cahvu 537 

general fact ; but also the particular persons who 
will, and who will not, partake of salvation. Hov/, 
then, we may ask the Armtnian^ is God sincere, on 
his plan, in urging and entreating all to accept of 
mercy ? Again, it has been frequently asked, *' If 
^* none but the elect will be saved, is not God a 
^' partial master, and a respecter of persons ?" 
But it may be quite as plausibly and confidently 
asked, '* How can we reconcile it with the impar- 
*' tiality and the benevolence of God to save only a 
" part of mankind ?" If salvation be his work, 
then, why does he not save all ? Why does he 
make a distinction ? And if it be not his work, 
then men save themselves. WiU . even Mr. HozUy 
with all his inveteracy against Calvinism^ go this 
length ? 

But while all the objections which our Arminian 
brethren urge against Calvinis7n^ lie with full as 
much force against their own system ; there are 
others, of a still more serious nature, to which that 
system is liable, and which, if I were compelled to 
admit, would plunge me into darkness and despair. 

Yes, my brethren, if I could bring myself to be- 
lieve, that the infinite and eternal God has laid no 
plan in the kingdom of his grace, but has left all 
to be decided by chance^ or accident^ not knowing 
the end from the beginning — If I could believe 
that the purposes of Jehovah, instead of being eter^ 
naly are all formed in time; and instead of being 
immutable^ are all liable to be altered by the chang- 
ing will of his creatures — If I could suppose that^ 

2 F 



338 LETTER VII. 

after all the Redeemer has done and sufFcred, the 
work of redemption cannot be completed, unless 
perishing mortals choose to lend their arm to its 
aid — If I could admit the idea, that God has 
done nothing more than decree, in general, to save 
all who may happen to believe ; without any deter" 
mination^ or, which is the same thing, without any 
certainty^ whetheryefti;, or many^ or none^ would be 
thus blessed — If I could suppose that God foresaw 
events as certainly future^ which he had not un-' 
changeahly determined to accomplish, and which, 
therefore, might never happen — If I could suppose 
that the omniscient Saviour died with a distinct 
purpose and design to save all men alike^ while it is 
certain that all xvtll not be saved — If I could em- 
brace the opinion that real Christians are no more 
indebted to grace than others, having received no 
more than they ; and that what makes them to differ 
from others is, not the sovereign goodness of God, 
but their own superior wisdom, strength, or merit ; 
in other words, that they make themselves to differ 
, — If I could admit the dreadful thought, that the 
Christian's continuance in his journey heavenward, 
depends, not on the immutable love and promise of 
his God ; but on the firmness of his own strength, 
and the stability of his own resolutions ; and, of 
course, that he who is the most eminent saint to day, 
may become a child of wrath, and an heir of per- 
dition to-morrow — In short, if I could conceive of 
God as working without any providential desigt^, 
and willing without any certain effect; desiring to 



Testimony of Calvin. 339 

save man, yet unable to save him, and often disap- 
-pointed in his expectations ; doing as much, and 
designing as much, for those that perish, as for 
those that are saved ; but after all baffled in his 
wishes concerning them ; hoping and desiring great 
things, but certain of nothings because he had deter^ 
mined on nothing — If I could believe these things, 
then, indeed, I should renounce Calvinism ; but 
it would not be to embrace the system of Arminiiis. 
Alas ! it would be impossible to stop here. I must 
consider the character of God as dishonoured ; his 
counsels as degraded to a chaos of wishes and en- 
deavours; his promises as the fallible and uncer- 
tain declarations of circumscribed knowledge and 
endless doubt ; the best hopes of the Christian as 
liable every hour to be blasted; and the whole 
plan of salvation as nothing better than a gloomy 
system of possibilities and peradventures ; a system 
on the whole, nearly, if not quite, as likely to land 
the believer in the abyss of the damned, as in the 
paradise of God. 

But, while I verily believe all these shocking con- 
sequences to flow, unavoidably, from the rejection 
of Calvinism ; while the Arminian doctrine ap» 
pears to me inconsistent with itself; dishonourable 
to God ; and comfortless to man ; yet I dare not 
bring a railing accusation against those who em- 
brace this doctrine ; I dare not impute to them the 
consequences which have been stated. They nei- 
ther acknowledge nor perceive them ; and if they 
did, would no doubt, be as ready to abhor them as 



340 LETTER VI|. 

ourselves. Nor can I cease to cherish the anima- 
ting belief, as well as to offer the fervent prayer, 
that thousands who now reject, in words, the doc- 
trines of Calvinism^ and entertain invincible preju- 
dices against the system which is generally called 
by that name ; may, notwithstanding, for ever re- 
joice in these doctrines, and bless God for them^ 
in a more enlightened, and a more happy world. 



( 341 ) 



LETTER VIIL 



Testimony of the Successors of the Reformers. 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

-DY the Successors of the Reformers^ I mean those 
great and good men who adorned the Protestant 
Churches, and took the lead in the direction of 
their affairs, for sixty or seventy years after the es- 
tablishment of the Reformation. Some of these 
excellent men have been quoted by our Episcopal 
brethren as witnesses in their favour ; especially 
some of the greatest ornaments of the Dutch and 
French Churches. Mr, IIoxv speaks with confi- 
dence of their testimony, as decisively favourable 
to his system ,• and Dr. Bowden^ by referring, with 
approbation, to what Dr. Hobart has advanced on 
this part of the controversy, virtually speaks the 
same language. 

These gentlemen, in giving this representation, 
surely count largely on the ignorance of their rea- 
ders. For although, if one might believe Durell^ 
and other collectors and perverters oiF scraps from 
the writers in question, they sometimes speak like 
believers in the Apostolical institution of prelacy ; 

2 F 2 



342 LETTER VIII. 

yet when we come to peruse their works, and es- 
pecially to examine the passages in which they for- 
mally deliver their opinion on this subject, wt shall 
find them, almost with one voice, speaking a lan- 
guage directly opposite to that which is ascribed to 
them. 

The truth is, when the Nonconformists in Eng- 
land^ after the establishment of the Reformation, 
began to revolt from the Episcopal hierarchy, and 
to oppose its unscriptural pretensions, a number of 
the Bishops, and other divines of the established 
Church in that country, wrote to some of the most 
eminent Presbyterian divines of the foreign Re- 
formed Churches, soliciting their influence, and the 
authority of their names, to quiet the minds of the 
discontented. In answ^er to solicitations of this 
kind, some of the foreign divines wrote letters, in 
which they spoke politely and respectfully of the 
Church of England; and plainly expressed an 
opinion that the Nonconformists ought not to make 
the point of Church government a cause of sepa- 
ration. Still, however, these men were Presbyte* 
rians in principle ; they had solemnly subscribed 
Confessions of Faith, which declared ministerial 
parity to be the doctrine of Scripture, and the 
practice of the primitive Church ; and when they 
came to discuss and decide the question concern- 
ing Prelacy, they spoke a language corresponding 
with their creed. And I venture to add, that for 
e-tJ^rj/ concession in favour ol Prelacy, which my op- 
ponents produce from the French, Dutch, Swiss, 



Successors of the Reformers. 343 

and German divines, who succeeded to the Re- 
formers, any man of reading might safely engage 
to produce ten^ more pointed concessions from di- 
vines of the Church of En-gland^ in favour of Pres- * 
byte ri an ism. 

It would be perfectly easy to fill a volume with 
quotations in proof of what has been advanced. 
The following selection will be sufficient to answer 
my purpose. It will be clearly seen, that, as the 
great body of the Reformers never offered the plea 
of necessity for establishing Presbyterian parity ; 
but steadily appealed to the word of God, and prim- 
itive usage as their warrant; so the great and 
excellent men who came after them, with scarcely 
any important exception, took the same ground, and 
made the same appeal. 

The learned Le Blanc^ a French Protestant di- 
vine of great eminence, who flourished in the age 
immediately succeeding that of the Reformation, 
says, " It is the most general opinion of the Eng^ 
*' lish. that Episcopacy and Presbytery, are distinct 
" offices ; but the rest of the Reformed^ as also 
^' those of the Augustan Confession^ (the Luther- 
" ans^J do unanimously believe that there is no 
'* such distinction by divine rights and that the 
" superiority of Bishops above Presbyters is only 
^' of ecclesiastical rights and has been introduced 
" into the Church by degrees. In the ages after 
" the Apostles, a custom was introduced, that one 
'' of the Presbyters should be chosen, by the votes 
" of the whole college, to preside over the other 



344 LETTER VIII. 

" Presbyters ; and these, after a while, assumed 
" to themselves the name of Bishops^ and, by de- 
" grees, gained more and more prerogatives, and 
" brought their colleagues into subjection to them, 
*' until, at length, the matter grew up to that ty- 
" ranny which now obtains in the Church of 
" Rome"^:' 

The very learned Chamier^ a French Protestant 
divine of great distinction, contemporary vf'ith Be* 
za^ has been sometimes quoted by Episcopalians, 
as making concessions in favour of their cause — 
The foUow^ing quotation will show his opinion of 
ministerial imparity. " Prelacy was not, by those 
" who first began it, judged to be absolutely better 
*' than Presbytery ; but only in a certain respect. 
^■^ Upon the same account we may likewise say, 
"^' that equality among Pastors is better in a certain 
" respect, viz. for the avoiding of the tyranny of 
" a few over the rest of their brethren, yea, of one 
^' over all. And how great an evil tyranny is, and 
*' how wide a gate was opened to it from the am- 
*' bition for this presidency^ experience hath, long 
" since, more than sufficiently shownf." In an- 
other part of the same work, he speaks still more 
strongly—" There is no one who doubts that this 
" custom of giving one Presbyter a presidency over 
" the rest, was introduced by good men, and upon 
" a good design. Would to God that it had not 

* Thes, de Grad. Mhiist, ^ 

t Panstrat, Tom. ii. Lib. 9. Cap. 14. § 11^ 



Successors of the Reformers. 34o 

*• rather arisen from carnal prudence^ than from the 
" direction of the Spirit I Would to God it had 
" been attended Vvith as happy and prosperous suc- 
*^ cess, as it was introduced with applause'^." In 
the next chapter, after having shown at large how 
Episcopacy introduced the Papacy^ he closes the ac- 
count with the following remark — ^' Thus human 
" wisdom, if once it decline but a jot from the ori- 
" ginal truth, becomes worse and worsef .'^ 

M. Danau^ a very eminent divine of the French 
Protestant Church, also contemporary with Beza^ 
treating of the subject under consideration, thus 
writes* ** So long as the Apostolic Constitution 
" continued in the Church, the Presbyters that la- 
*^ boured in the word and doctrine diff^ered not at 
" all from Bishops. But after that, by the ambi- 
" tion of these who presided over other Presby- 
^' ters, and took to themselves the name of Bishops^ 
^' the Apostolical form and discipline w^as abolish- 
"' ed ; then the Bishops began to be distinguished 
"'■ even from those Presbyters that preached the 
^^ word ; and to these Bishops, contrary to Godh 
"^ zvord^ the whole dignity was ascribed ; scarcely 
'' any part thereof being left to the Presbyters ; 
*' which thing, and the ambition of the Bishops, 
^' did in time ruin the whole Church, as the fact 
*^ of the Papacy itself proclaims : And so the 
-' Apostolic Episcopacy was abolished, and a hu^ 

* Paiistrat. Lib. 10. Cap. 5. § 22. 
I Ibid. Cap. 6. § 18, 



346 LETTER VIII. 

'' ma?i Episcopacy began, from which sprang the 
" Satanic Episcopacy, as it now is in the Papacy. 
" — The distinction of a Bishop from a preaching 
" Presbyter is Juris pontificit^ of Pontiflcian and 
" positive right, being brought in after the foun- 
" dations of the tyranny of the Bishops were laid \ 
** but is not of divine right^.^' 

The celebrated Bochart^ a French Protestant di- 
vine of great learning and authority, has often been, 
quoted by Episcopal writers, as having expressed 
himself in favour of Prelacy. The following decla- 
rations from his pen are found in a letter which he 
wrote to Dr. Morley^ an English Bishop, who had 
requested his opinion on the subject. " In the 
" office of Overseer or Bishops there are three 
" things which we must not mix together, — the 
" TT^Ecr/^uTEftov, i. e. the Elderships or Pastoral office^ 
" whica Scripture ascribes to the Overseer or Bi- 
" shop ; — ^the v'7e^oxnys i. e. the pre-eminence above 
** other pastors, which the ancient Church added 
" to the Bishop ; and the lordship over God's heri* 
*' tage which some in these last times have stren- 
" uously advocated. The Jirst of these is of di- 
" vine authority ; the second of ecclesiastical au- 
" thority ; and the third of neither, but a mere 
" abuse. The ^first^ the Church cannot dispense 
" with ; the second may be borne ; but the third 
" ought at once to be rooted out^"^ — In answer to 
Bishop Morleyh question, whether it was better 

"* Dax^i Control). 5. Lib. i. Cap. 14 



Successors of the Reformers, 347 

for the English Church to be governed by Pres- 
byters than by Bishops^ Bochart replies — " The 
*^ Episcopal government was not of divine^ but ec- 
'' clesiastical appointment ; but since the English 
" Church has hitherto been governed by Bishops, 
" that form of government may and can with pro- 
^^ priety be borne. For every \vhere men live ; but 
** men cannot live every where in the same way. 
" As in political society some prefer being govern- 
*' ed by one^ and others by many ; so it is in eccle- 
" siastical society. In England they are so accus- 
" tomed to Episcopal government, that though of 
" no divine or apostolical authority, it cannot be 
" dispensed with. In other places, government 
" by Overseers, or Ministers, or Presbyters, is 
" preferred. But in Churches which have never 
" been governed by Bishops, they may be dispens- 
*' ed with, even though the civil government be 
"' monarchical ; since this nexv institution^ of hu^ 
** man origin^ sprung merely from pride and ambi^ 
*^ tion^ and has never been of the least advantage to 
^' the Church, which in every change of things 
'^ ought always to be contemplated. And since it 
^' will neither diminish nor increase the glory of a 
'* Prince, whether he receive his crown from a Bi- 
" shop or Pastor." — In another part of the same 
letter, he says — " If you ask for the opinions of 
•' the Ancients^ I entirely agree with Jerome^ that, 
" in the Apostolic times, there was no difference 
'^ between Bishops and Presbyters^ or Elders^ and 



348 LETTER VIII. 

^' that the Church was governed by a Common 
" council of Presbyters^." 

In this manner did Bochart^ unquestionably one 
of the most learned men of his day, speak on the 
subject under consideration, when his opinion was 
formally requested. And when it is considered 
that he communicated this opinion to a respectable 
Prelate ; and, of course, had every inducement to 
speak as favourably of the English hierarchy as 
possibly, the quotation carries with it peculiar 
weight. 

But none of the writers of the Reformed 
Churches have been quoted, by our Episcopal 
brethren, with more confidence, as a witness in 
their favour, than the very learned and celebrated 
M. Claude. The following quotation leaves no 
room to doubt what were his real sentiments on 
the subject in dispute. 

" The Apostles have left no successors in their 
" office, which was unique. It was an extraordi- 
** nary office ; and they continue to teach and in- 
*' struct the Church in all ages, by their writings. 
" The Aposdes first collected Churches by their 
** preaching. These Churches, when assembled, 
" with their advice and assistance, appointed their 
*' own Presbyters or Elders^ Overseers or Bishops ; 
" and they received the symbol, or ceremonial in- 
^^ vestiture of office, by the laying on of the hands 



* See Outhqf^s Verklarin^e over denhrief nan TiUts.jy. ^4'» 
$210. and p. 297, 298. §620. 



&C€C€Sscrs of the Heformers, 349 

^^ of the Presbytery or Eldership : The office itself 
" being conferred, and the vocation ntiade by the 
*' election of the Church, And so scrupulous 
** were the Apostles in appointing this order of 
*' things, which was to remain in the Church, that, 
^' even in their presence, the ordination rite was 
*^ performed by the laying on of the hands of the 
" Presbyter)^." 

Again, he says, " As to ordinations of this kind, 
*' (by Presbyters,) can the Author be ignorant 
'' that the distinction of Bishop and Presbyter, as 
" expressive of diflferent offices, is a distinction 
*' which not only cannot be proved by the Scrip- 
^' tures ; but which contradicts their express lan- 
" guage, in which it is plain that Bishop and Pres- 
" byter are only different names expressive of the 
*' same office ? Can this author be ignorant of the 
opinion of St. Jerome^ of Hilary^ the Deacon, 
'' and, after them, of Hincmar^ which they have 
'' so explicitly given, concerning the unity or uieTV* 
*^ tity of the office of Bishop and Presbyter, in the 
** earliest ages of the Church ; and concerning the 
" origin of that distinction which afterwards took 
'* place between them ? Can he be ignorant that 
" Su Augustine himself, writing to St, Jerome^ re- 
" fers that distinction, not to the primitive instltu- 
*' tion of the ministry, but merely to an ecclesiasti- 
^* cal custom, which had since grown up ? Can 

* Historical Defence of the Reformation ^ 4to. Editv IdT^". 
P, IV. C. 5. p. 342. 

2 G 



iC 



360 



LETTER VIII, 



" he be ignorant that some of the fathers have 
" taught us, that the ordination of a Presbyter and 
*' a Bishop are strictly one and the same, and not 
^' different kinds of acts, sufficiently expressing to 
^^ us the identity of the offices ? And as to the 
*' right of ordaining, can this author deny that St. 
*^ Paid speaks of the laying on of the hands of the 
'' Presbyte7'y P Can he deny that Presbyters an- 
" ciently ordained equally with Bishops^'?" Fur- 
ther, " The right of ordination, therefore, , is one 
*' that naturally belongs to Presbyters. And since 
^^ they have been deprived of it by rules and con- 
^' stituticns which are merely of human authority ^ 
^' the right still remains essentially attached to 
*' their office, and they may justly reclaim it, when- 
^' ever the state of the Church will permit. And 
^^ that I may declare my opinion with freedom, it 
" appears to me that the haughty and insolent 
" opinion, which maintains the absolute necessity 
" of Episcopal ordinations, and, without them, an- 
^' nihilates the Church, the ministry, andthe sacra- 
" ments, however pure the faith, the doctrine, and 
*' the piety of the Church may be ; — thus making 
" religion depend on a form, and that form of 
*^ mere human invention ; — I repeat it, it appears 
*' to me that this insolent opinion carries on it the 
*' character of a shameful corruption ; it bears the 
*^ mark of profound hypocrisy^ of a pure pharisa* 
*' ism^ which strains at a gnat^ while it swallorvs a 
^^ camel. I cannot help having, at least, a deep con- 
* Jilstor, Bef. p. 5^2, 3^5, 



Successors of the Reformers* 351 

^* tempt for such opinwns^ and compassion for those 
" who are thus obstinate and headstrong in niain- 
" taining then>^." 

In 1680, when Otven^ Baxter^ Alsop^ Clarkson^ 
Hoxve^ and other eminent English Presbyterians, 
had written largely and ably in defence of their 
principles ; the Episcopal writers, feeling them- 
selves deficient in argument^ made an attempt to 
support their cause, by soliciting some of the fo- 
reign Presbyterians to speak in their favour. For 
this purpose the Bishop of London^ in that year, 
wrote to M. Claude^ requesting him to give his 
opinion of English Presbyterianism. Claude re- 
turned a complaisant answer, expressing great re- 
spect for the English Church; gently blaming the 
Nonconformists for separating from it merely on 
a question of government ; and explicitly conced- 
ing that salvation might be obtained, and eveiy 
spiritual advantage received under the Episcopal 
regimen. Messieurs U Angle and Le Mcyne^ 
being addressed in the same manner, wrote in a 
similar strain. These letters Bishop Stilling fleet 
subjoined to a work of his own, on The Unreason^ 
ableness of Separation^ and pompously published 
as suffrages for Episcopacy ; and ever since, they 
have been confidently quoted for the same purpose. 

M. Claude complained that his Letter was ])ub- 

lished without his permission ; that a construction 

was put upon it, which he never intended ; and that 

a use was made of it contrary to his v/ishes. These 

* HJstor. Def. p. 374. 



552 LETTER VIII. 

complaints were contained in Letters addressed to 
the Bishop of London^ and to a Lady of his ac- 
quaintance, in the year 1681 \ which, however, the 
Episcopalians of England took care never to pub- 
lish; and which were never given to the world 
until after the death of Claude^ when they were 
brought to light by his son. The following ex- 
tracts from these Letters will be sufficient to place 
the sentiments of the excellent writer in a just 
point of light. 

^' I have received the Letter which you were 
'' pleased to send me from the Bishop of London^ 
'^^ with the book which accompanied it. I shall 
'^ have the honour to reply to the Bishop, and to 
'^ thank him for the present which he hath sent 
" me. Nevertheless, Madam, as I learn from dif- 
" ferent places, that many persons have not entire- 
'' ly understood my sentiments and expressions, 
" touching the present state of the English Church, 
'' I have believed that it would not be improper to 
" explain myself more particularly to you, and to 
*' let you know the innocence of my thoughts and 
" intentions. First; I can conscientiously declare 
*" that when I wrote on the subject to the Bishop 
" of London^ it was not with the intention that my 
" letter should be printed, or rendered public ;- and 
" that I have even been surprised and astonished 
" to see it as well in French as in English^ at the 
" end of the book which you have sent me, with 
" two others, one of Mons. M. and another of 
" Mons. A. — But besides this, be assured, Ma- 



Successors of the Reformers. '^5o 

" dam, that, in what I have written, I have had 
" two things only in view ; viz. to justify us from 
" a calumny which some persons imputed to us, 
" of believing that salvation could not be obtained 
" under the Episcopal government; and of aiding 
*' as much as my w^eakness was capable of, a good' 
*' and holy union of the two parties. With respect 
" to ihtfrst^ I believe I have, with sufficient just- 
*' ness, explained the sentiments of all the Protes- 
" tants of this kingdom, and in particular, of all 
'' those who are honoured with our character, (the 
" clergy.) And I am even assured that the Eng- 
" lish Presbyterians would not go so far as to con- 
" test the possibility of salvation under the minis- 
^' try of Bishops. They have, for that, too much 
** light, wisdom, and christian charity. With re- 
" spect to the second^ I have endeavoured to keep 
'* all the measures vi^hich ought to be kept in so 
" great and important an affair as this. I have ex- 
" plained myself only in the form of a wish, and 
" in showing w^hat I desired that the Presbyte- 
" rians might attentively consider. I have not been 
" silent with regard to the Episcopalians. I have 
" condemned the excesses into which some of both 
" parties have gone ; and I have shown, as far as 
" my little wisdom enabled me, the reasons which 
" should induce both to a just and reasonable ae- 
" commodation*.^' 

In a Letter to the Bishop of London^ of the same 

* Les Oeuvres Posthumesy de M. Claude. Tom. v. Let. 58. 
2 G 2 



354 LETTER VI 1 1. 

date, M. Claude writes thus. " The Nonconform- 
" ists complain, that the Episcopalians are as ar- 
" dent in pursuing them with the penalties of the 
*' laws, as if they were adversaries and enemies. 
*' They complain, that your government is no less 
" arbitrary and despotic with regard to dissenting 
" Ministers, than that of the Bishops of the Ro- 
" man communion. They complain, that you will 
" receive no one to the ministry, till he acknow- 
" ledges, on oath, that Episcopacy is of divine 
^' right, which is a hell CGehenneJ to the con- 
^' science. They complain, that, whilst you do 
*^ not re-ordain the Roman Catholic priests who 
'' come to you, you do re-ordain ministers, who 
^' come to you from beyond the seas, in the Church- 
^^ es of France^ Holland^ &c- They complain, that 
'' the Bishops have a rigid attachment to many ce- 
" remonies which are offensive, and for which^ 
" nevertheless, they combat tanquam pra arts et 
"' focis. In the name of God, my Lord^ labour 
"^ to remove these grounds of complaint, if there 
•^ is any truth in them, and if there is not^ to give 
*-' infdrmation of the real state of the case. And 
^' let all Enrope know, that there is nothing which 
•* the glory of God, and the love of the Church 
^•^ can demand of you, that you are not ready to 
** grant*'." 

It is evident, then, from all the documents which 
have come to light on this subject, that the English 
Bishops, in order to draw from the foreign Presby- 

* JLe* Otuxres P^ithuvies, dc M* Ciauclc. Toxrr. v. Let* 39. 



Successors of the Reforme7's. 355 

terians something in their favour, sent to them a 
disingenuous statement of the case ; that, under 
this deception, their answers were written ; and 
that, as soon as they* understood the real state of 
things, they complained of having been treated 
with duplicity, and declared opinions very different 
from those which had been imputed to them. That 
this was the case with M. Claude^ is certain -, and 
that it was also the case with his brethren, who 
shared in the imposition which was practised upon 
him, I have no doubt would appear, if we had ac- 
cess to their other writings. 

The learned Daille is also frequently quoted by 
zealous Episcopalians, as having made important 
concessions in favour of Prelacy. I cannot under- 
take to say that no incautious or doubtful sentence 
ever escaped from the pen of this illustrious Pro- 
testant, on the subject of Episcopacy ; though I 
have never seen any which warrants the construc- 
tion of our Episcopal brethren ; but I may venture 
to assert, that no candid man can peruse his Ser^ 
mons on the First Epistle to Timothy^ without being 
convinced that he was a decided and warm advo- 
cate of ministerial parity^ as having obtained in 
the Apostolic and primitive Church. To prove 
this, the following extracts are sufficient. 

" Here the hierarchs, having their imagination 
^* full of their grand prelatures, of their bishoprics, 
^* their archbishoprics, and their primacies, do not 
" fail to dream of one in these w^ords of the Apos- 
*' tie. That he besought Timothy to abide still at 



356 LETTER viir. 

" Ephesus^ signifies, if you believe them, that he 
'' made Timothy Bishop of the Church of Ephe- 
" sus ; and not only that, but even Metropolitan, or 
" Archbishop of the province ; and even primate 
^' of all Asia, You see how ingenious is the pas- 
" sion for the crosier and the mitre , being able, 
'' in so few and simple words, to 'detect such great 
" mysteries! For where is the man, who, in the 
" use of his natural understanding, without being 
" heated by a previous attachment, could ever have 
^' found so many mitres — that of a Bishop, that of 
" an Archbishop, and that of a Primate, in these 
'^ two words, Paul besought Timothy to abide still 
" at Ephesus ? Who, without the help of some 
" extraordinary passion, could ever have made so 
" charming and so rare a discovery ? And imagine 
" that to beseech a man to stay in a city, means, to 
" establish him Bishop of that city, Archbishop of 
" the province, and primate of all the country ? In 
'^ very deed, the cause of these gentlemen of the 
" hierarchy must be reduced to an evil plight, since 
" they are constrained to resort to such pitiful 
^^ proofs*." 

Again, he says — ■" St. Paul^ and all the compa- 
*' ny of Pastors, laid hands on Timothy at his or- 
" dination. St. Paul as president, and the rest as 
" colleagues^ according to the practice which ob- 
^' tains among us, where it is usual for the person 
" appointed by the Synod first to lay hands on him 

''^ See his Fir^t Sermon on the Episde* 



Successors of the Reformers. 3S7 

'• that is ordained ; all the rest of the pastors pre- 
'' sent, afterwards joining with him in laying on 
'^ tlieir hands on the same person^/' 

The language of those divines of the Lutheran 
Church, who succeeded the Reformers, was not 
less explicit and decisive than that of the other 
Protestant divines of Europe. The following spe- 
cimen of their opinions, is all that I have room to 
admit. 

I'he learned Frederick Balduin^ Professor of 
Divinity in the University of Wittemberg^ and a 
Superintendent in the Lutheran Church, speaking 
on the subject in question, expresses himself in the 
following manner. *^ Hence the Papists common- 
" ly cry out against the pastors of our Churches, 
"' as if they were not legitimately ordained, be- 
^' cause they were not ordained by Bishops ; and 
^^ they assert that neither Luther^ nor any other 
*^ orthodox ministers, had the power of conferring 
*^ orders, because they were not Bishops^ but only 
'■' Presbijters. But our judgment is that Bishops 
'' have their pre-eminence in the Church, not by 
*' divine rights but by a voluntary arrangement 
*^ of the Churchy which thought proper to direct 
*' that, for the sake of order, a Bishop, or he who 
'* was first in the ministry, should ordain in the 
'*• Church ; the whole Presbytery being present, 
'^ and laying on hands at the same time j but so, 

* See his 3 1st Sermon on the Episth. 



358 LETTER VXII. 

" however, that if the Bishop or first minister, 
" should happen to be absent^ a Presbyter might 
" perform the same duty in his stead, that nothing 
'^ may be neglected in the Church. For a Bishop 
*' is nothing more than the j^r^^^ Presbyter, as St. 
" Augustine tells us, ^icest. 101. ex utroque Testam* 
*' Accordingly, " in Egypt^ Presbyters ordain, if 
*^ a Bishop be not present," as Ambrose writes, in 
" his Commentary on Ephesians iv. " There is 
" nothing, therefore, wanting to the validity of our 
" ministry ; for with respect to the difference which 
/'the Papists make between a Bishop and a Pres- 
" byter, as if the former only had the power of or- 
'^ daining, the Scriptures do not recognize it. The 
*•' Scriptures ascribe the power of ordination to 
*' the whole Presbytery, not to a single Bishop -, as 
" the Apostle writes to Timothy — Neglect not the 
*' gtftxvhich is in thee^ which was given thee by 
" prophecy^ with the laying on of the hands of the 
'' Presbytery. And the Apostle P«w/, though not 
^' inferior to a Bishop in dignity, accepted ordina- 
'' tion from the Presbytery of AnUoch^ not from a 
" single Bishop ; as we find related, A'^6^ xii. 2. 
" From all which considerations we plainly infer 
^^ that the legitimacy of the ordinations in the Lu- 
" theran Churches, whether performed by Luther 
'' or by other Lutheran 7ninisters^ cannot by any 
^* means be called in question*." 



* Tractatus Luculentus de Casibiis ConsQlentico, Lib 4. Cap, 
Cas. 4.4to. 1628. 



Successors of the Reformer s» 359 

Another. respectable authority on this subject, is 
the learned C. Dieterich^ a Doctor of Divinity, and 
also a Superintendent in the Lutheran Church of 
Germany^ who Uved in the age immediately follow- 
ing that of Luther. He declares, that " the ordi- 
^' nation of ministers in the Lutheran Church is 
" by Presbyters^ and that this method of ordina- 
" tion has the divine xvarrant,'^'^ And a little after, 
he remarks, " They (the Papists) rail against 
" us that we are not able to produce a regular com- 
" mission, because we are neither called, nor or- 
" dained by Bishops^ having papal jurisdiction, nor 
'' have any legitimate claim to the Apostolic suc- 
*' cession. But let them rail. This is the old 
" Popish tune to which our ears have become 
" accustomed. Neither Bishops alone, nor the Pope 
" alone, have the power of ordaining ministers. The 
^' blessed Apostles, without any parade of ceremo- 
'* ny, were in the habit of introducing candidates 
" into the sacred office by fasting, prayer, and the 
" irnposition of the hands of Ministers* We imi- 
'' tate this Apostolic simplicity. And where men 
*^ are called, examined, ordained, and placed in 
" the Church, by prayer, and the laying on of the, 
" hands of the Presbytery^ the ministry of the 
" word and sacraments, the government of the 
" flock, &c. are committed to them. Which kind 
" of ordination, though not enjoined by absolute 
" divine command, we nevertheless judge proper 
" to be retained, partly because it is conformable 
^^ xvith the practice of the primitive Church ,• and 



360 LETTER Vin* 

" partly on account of its salutary effects^." A- 
gain, he remarks — '' Scripture knows nothing of 
" any difference between Presbyter and Bishop. 
'V Those who are in one place called Presbyters 
" are, a little after, called Bishops ; as in Acts xx. 
" 17. 28. St. Jerome shows the same thing in his 
*' Commentary on the Epistle to Titus. With Je^ 
" rome agreed Chrysostom^ Theodoret^ Primasius, 
^^ Theophylact^ and other Fathers. Even in the 
*' Canon Law the same doctrine is contained. For 
" it is there asserted, that, ' formerly a Presbyter 
" and a Bishop were the same thing.' Even Bel-- 
'' larmine does not deny this, in his work De Cleri- 
" cis^ Lib. I. Cap. 12. for he says that the Episco- 
''• pal pre-eminence of one was brought in by the 
*' Churchy as a remedy for schism ; and quotes Je* 
" rome as his authority. How, then, can it be of 
" divine rightt?" 

Professor Hulsemann^ a Lutheran Divine of 
great eminence, and who also lived in the age im- 
mediately following that of Luther^ in a commenta- 
ry on the Augustan Confession., expresses himself 
in the following manner. " The Bishops succeed^ 
" cd in the place of the Aposdes ; not, however, 
*' as to that which formally constituted them Apos- 
" ties, Gal. I. 1. 2 Cor. xii. 11, 12; but as to that • 
^' which they hold in common with Presbyters ; for, 

'* Analysis JSvan^eliorum, "Par, ii. 47 — 49. 
t Ibid. 61, 62. 



Successors of the Reformers. 351 

** by divine rights they are in 7io respect superior to 
" Presbyters^:' 

Gerhard^ a Lutheran Divine of great eminence 
and authority, who lived a little after the time of 
Luther^ though he admits that a moderate kind of 
Episcopacy, amounting to nothing more than a 
standing moderator ship ^ is laxvfid^ and, in some 
cases, expedient^ yet he represents it as a mere hiC" 
man institution ; and explicitly speaks of the doc- 
trine that Bishops are, by divine right, an order su* 
perior to Presbyters, and alone possess the power* 
of ordination, as a Popish error^. 

The works of few Lutheran divines hold a high- 
er place in the esteem of the Churches of that de- 
nomination, than those of Buddceus^ the celebrated 
Professor of divinity at Leipsic. This learned 
theologian makes the following statement, with re- 
gard to the government of his own Church. '^ The 
'^ judgment of the divines of our Church, is this, 
" that, among those who preside in the Church, 
^' there is, by divine right, no difference^ on the 
* ^ score of dignity, so' that Presbyters and Bishops 
" are equal : But, notwithstanding that, there is no 
*^ solid objection against introducing a certain in- 
'^ equality, on the ground of human expediency^ and 
'' giving to one of the ministers of the word a sort 
" of inspection over the rest, and, at the same time, 
^' a certain pre-eminence of character. Neither 

^ 'Manuale Confessioiiis Augustance vindicans eaTTiy Stc. All- 
tore yohanne Huheinanno. p. 519, 520. 

t Loci Communes, Tom. 6. Col. 260, 25f. 
2 H 



^62 LETTER VIII. 

^^ do we deny that this was the case in the ancient 
*^ Church ; although the abuse which arose from 
*' this, in which the Bishops usurped to themselves 
'' a tyrannical domination, we greatly detest. Nor 
'' can we be charged with having abolished the 
*' office of Bishop in our Church, as Henry Dod* 
'' welly and others, have reproachfully alleged 
" against us^ ; since it is plain from fact, that we 
" have only restored the office to those just limits, 
" and to that true character which it held in the 
'' ancient Church. For we have not only given to 
^^ ministers of the word that power which Presby* 
" ters enjoyed in the Apostolic Church'f ; but to 
" certain of them there is allowed a kind of pre- 
" eminence or inspection over others. These are 
'' called Superintendents y or Presidents^ or Inspect 
*' torsy and, in some places, they are styled Bi- 



* The learned Dod'well understood the government of the 
Lutheraji Church much better than Dr Bowden and Mr. 
How, He thought that, on the principles o£ the ^'ure divt' 
no prelatists, the Lutherans had no Bishops among them ; and 
the learned Buddaus confesses the fact ; though he contends 
that they have such Bishops sls the ancient Church had. 

f Here Buddaus makes a clear distinction between the 
ancient church, and the Apostolic church. By the formery he 
elsewhere explains himself to mean that which existed soon 
after the Apostolic age ; by the latter he means that ecclesias- 
tical order which the Apostles themselves established. In 
the former he admits that a moderate kind of Episcopacy was 
introduced by hutnan nuisdom, and this he says the Lutherans 
imitate. In the latter, he repeatedly and explicitly declares 
tliat niinisterial parity prevailed. 



Successors of the Reformers. 363 

" shops^y The same writer, in the very section 
from which the above extract is taken, more than 
once remarks, that the Papists, and the English 
Episcopalians are equally m error in asserting the 
divine right of prelacy. He speaks of his having 
written two works on the Origin and Pozver of Bi- 
shops, which were particularly intended to oppose 
the notions of certain high-Churchmen in Englanci. 
He declares, that it is notorious and unquestion- 
able that Jerome contended zealously for the primi- 
tive equality of Bishops and Presbyters. And he 
also asserts, that the office of Deacon was, in pro- 
cess of time, perverted from that guardianship of 
the poor which it was expressly intended to sub- 
serve by the Apostles. 

The same Divine, in his able and learned Pre- 
face to Bingham^s Origines Ecclesiasticce^ adverting 
to Bingham\ high-Church opinions, makes the fol- 
lowing declarations. " But when he asserts, fur- 
" ther on, that the order of Bishops was instituted 
" by the Apostles, he will have very few to join him, 
*' excepting the Roman Catholics, and the high- 
*' toned Episcopalians in England. For there is 
" not only no vestige of such a thing to be found if\ 
** Scripture ; but the very contrary is plainly in- 
" timated there, viz. that Presbyters and Bishops 
" were the same thing in the Apostolic age." He 
then goes on to show that the Fathers teach no- 



* I, F. Buddcsi Isa^oge Jlh'torico-Theologka, &c. Lib. Ji. 
Cap. V. § 11. 



364 LETTER VI I W 

thing contrary to this ; and by a number of quota- 
tions from Ignatius^ Clemens Alexandriiius^ Irenccus, 
and Tertullian^ evidently establishes his point. 

I have reserved for separate consideration, the 
testimony of the Synod of Dort ; not only because 
the proceedings of that venerable assembly hold a 
most important station in the history of the Chris- 
tian Church; but also because they have been mis- 
understood and misrepresented by my opponents, 
in a manner so extraordinary as to demand parti- 
cular notice. Mr. Hoiv^ especially, has allowed 
himself to speak on this subject in a way for which 
I really feel at a loss to form an adequate apology. 
To suppose that it has never fallen in his way to 
obtain correct information respecting it, is the most 
favourable construction which the case seems to 
admit. 

It is generally known, that the Synod of Dort 
sat in the years 1618 and 1619; that it was con- 
vened for the purpose of considering and deciding 
on the heresy oi Arminhis ; that it was composed of 
delegates from the greater part of the Protestant 
Churches oi Europe; that ¥Av\g James I. sent five 
delegates from the Church of England^ to delibe- 
rate and vote in the Synod ; and that of these dele- 
gates one was, at that time, a Bishop, and two 
others were, soon after their return home, raised 
to that dignity. It is also well known, that the Sy- 
nod, after long and solemn deliberation, formally 
condemned th€ doctrines of Arminhcs^ and adopted 



Successors of the Reformers. 365 

those of Calvin; and that the English delegates 
concurred, with one voice, both in the condemna- 
tion of the former, and in the adoption of the 
latter. 

In speaking of the proceedings of this Synod, in 
my seventh Letter, having no temptation to con- 
ceal or disguise the truth, I was careful to state, 
that " Bishop Carleton^ and the other English de- 
legates expressed their opinion, in the Synod, very 
FULLY in favour of the Episcopal form of govern- 
ment*'' This, however, does not satisfy Mr. Hoxv. 
He professes to quote my sentence, but adroitly 
leaves out the words '^ very fully^'* and then ex- 
claims — " See, Sir, how you mis-state ? They de- 
" clared the divine right of Episcopacy^ Is there 
" no difference between the two modes of expres- 
*' sion ? You seem to have been aware of the ne- 
*^ cessity of concealing the true state of the case 
" from your readers ; thus entitling yourself to the 
*' credit, at least, of caution as an advocate, what- 
" ever may be thought of your candour as a man.'' 
Passing by the indelicate suggestion which this 
passage contains, as beneath a reply, I would only 
ask, where is the " mis-statement?^'^ To say that 
they '^ expressed an opinion very fully in favour of 
Episcopacy," is surely a mode of speaking suffici- 
ently strong to cover the fact, even as Mr. How 
states it. Whatever " difference*^ there may be in 
the two modes of expression, there is certainly no 
inconsistency between them. 
2H2 



366 LETTER VIII. 

Mr. Hoxi) seems desirous of impressing on the 
minds of his readers, that the English delegates 
had been warmly solicited by the Dutch to attend 
their Synod ; and complied with their solicitation, 
rather as a matter oi courtesy^ than of strict ecclesi- 
astical order. He says, '' The English Bishops 
" being invited to attend, thought it would be wrong 
" to refuse the invitation ; especially as it was their 
*' ardent wish to promote union and harmony 
" among protestants." Now it happens that the 
solicitation was all on the other side. The fact is, 
that the states of Holland at first intended to form 
the Synod of Dort of delegates from their own 
Churches only : and it was at the express solicita" 
tion of King James^ (whose request was communi- 
cated and seconded by Maurice^ Prince of Orange^) 
that eminent Divines deputed from England^ and 
other reformed countries, were admitted to sit and 
deliberate in that assembly^. Had Mr. How been 
acquainted with this fact, he could not possibly 
have penned the above cited paragraph. 

I had produced, in my seventh Letter, the con- 
duct of the English delegates to the Synod of 
Dort^ in accepting seats in that assembly, as an im- 
plied recognition of the Presbyterian Church oiHoU 
land^ as a true Church ; and of all the ministers of 
the continent who composed the Synod, (though 



* See the Dedication of the Acts of the Synod of Dort. Toplu' 
dy^s Worksy Vol ii. p. 253. Christian ObsermeVy Vol. Jii. 
p. 632. Bishop HalVs Works, Vol. iii. p. 15. 



Successors of the Reformers, 36ir 

none of them had received Episcopal ordination,) 
as true ministers of Christ. — And in this judgment 
the Episcopal historian Collier^ concurs. Dr. Boxv^ 
den^ however, is of opinion, that the conduct of the 
English delegates does by no means admit of such 
a construction. Mr. How goes further^ and even 
ventures to affirm, that the history of the English 
delegation to the Synod of Dort^ instead of afford- 
ing the least countenance to the Presbyterian doc- 
trine of parity, rather shows that the most respecta- 
ble delegates to that Synod, from the different Re- 
formed Churches, really believed in the doctrine of 
Prelacy by divine right; lamented their want of 
diocesan Bishops ; and ascribed their want of 
this ecclesiastical regimen only to necessity. Nay 
he declares, that to attempt to construe the atten- 
dance of the English delegates as I have done, " is 
^' as puerile as it is disingenuous^'^ Nothing more 
is necessary than this simple statement to show 
TS/ir. Ho'uPs entire want of acquaintance with the 
liistory of that Synod, and the import of its trans- 
actions ; which, indeed, he betrays in almost everj^ 
sentence he has written on the subject. Let me 
request your attention to the following particulars. 

The ministers of the Dutch Church had it in 
their power, at the time of the Reformation, to re- 
tain diocesan Episcopacy, if they had thought it 
either scriptural or expedient. The people, for a 
number of centuries, had been accustomed to this 
kind of ecclesiastical government. The magis- 
trates made no objection to its continuance. And 



36B LETTER VIII. 

nothing would have been more easy than to obtain 
regular consecration for protestant Bishops. No 
necessity^ therefore, of rejecting prelacy, or of adop- 
ting Presbyterian parity, in Holland^ ever existed, 
or was pretended to exist. But such was the know- 
ledge which the great and good Reformers, in that 
country, had obtained of the government, as well as 
the doctrines of the primitive Church, that when 
they broke off from Popery, they thought it their 
duty to restore the scriptural order, together with 
the primitive truth of the Church. They had seen 
the mischiefs of Prelacy. They knew that it had 
no divine authority for its support-'— And, therefore, 
when they threw off the yoke of bondage^ they re- 
jected this, not by any means as the worst^ but still 
as one of the errors of the Church of Rome* 

The Faith, Government, and Discipline of the 
Reformed Dutch Church were settled by a succes- 
sion of National Synods, beginning with that of 
Weselm 1568, and ending with that of Dort in 1618 
and 1619^. The Svnods held at WeseL in the 
year above mentioned, and at Emhden^ in 1571, are 
considered as having formed the fundamental arti- 
cles of that Church, both with respect to doctrine 
and government. Among the proceedings of the 
Synod of Wesel^ it was ordained, in the second arti- 
cle of their acts, " That besides forming a Consist 

* See a brief and perspitaious sketch of the rise, progress, 
and principles of the Reformed church of Holland^ in a small 
'^oo'^exi\\\\e,AyKerkdykRantboekje^ &c. ^e Church Manual^ 
necessary for Ministers and Consistories, D^lf. l7Z^p 



Successors of the Reformers* 369 

" tory in every congregation, the Netherland Pro- 
" vinces should be divided into certain Classes^^ — 
And in the third article, they say, " As soon as it 
" shall please the Lord to open a door for the free 
" preaching of his word in the Netherlands^ care 
" shall be taken immediately for calling Provincial 
" Synods, for arranging all matters," &c. And it 
is expressly added, that in these judicatories the 
ministers shall preside in rotation* — In the Synod 
oi Evibden^ in 1571, their acts commence with the 
same regulation respecting Consistories, Classes, 
and Synods, as were stated as having passed at 
JVesely three years before. One of their articles 
begins with these words — " No Church shall be 
" considered as having authority over another 
'^ Church. No minister of the Gospel shall be 
*' vested with power above another minister ; but 
" every one shall avoid the very suspicion, and 
'' watch against every temptation that might draw 
" him to assume a superiority." 

It is observable that, for the formation of these 
ecclesiastical judicatories, this Synod distributed 
the Reformed Churches into three great districts. 
One comprehended all the Churches in the Wes- 
tern part of Germany^ and Holland^ or East-Fries^ 
land. Another comprised what they called the 
Churches under the Cross^ meaning those which 
were surrounded by Papists, and exposed to the 
persecution of Popish magistrates and ecclesiastics. 
And the last district which they named, took in all 
the English Churches. The 12th article, which re- 



370 LETTER VJII. 

lates to these last, is very remarkable. " And the 
" members of the Church of England shall be ad* 
" monished to distribute their Churches also into 
" Classes without any further delay." From this 
article it is evident, not only that the Dutch Church, 
at this period, was decidedly anti-Episcopal in her 
principles; but also that she wished and hoped to 
prevail on the Church of England to come nearer to 
her views of ecclesiastical government, if not to 
adopt them. There is peculiar emphasis in the 
word admonish^ which conveys the idea of exhorta^ 
tton and warnings with some fear oi delinquency. 

In every succeeding national Synod down to that 
oi Dort^ the same Presbyterian principles were de- 
cidedly avow^ed and maintained, as every public 
document respecting them unequivocally proves. 
In fact, with regard to the parity of ministers, and 
the government of the Church by consistorial, clas- 
sical, and synodical assemblies, there was not only 
a perfect harmony, and absolute decision, in all the 
Synods antecedent to that of Dort^ but each suc- 
ceeding Synod literally copied the language of the 
preceding ; and all, with undeviating consistency, 
opposed prelacy, and adhered to the Presbyterian 
model. I challenge Mr. How^ or any of his friends, 
to produce a single authentic testimony which 
shows that, among all the discussions and transac- 
tions of the Church of Holland^ respecting ecclesi- 
astical policy, there was ever so much as a proposal 
to make the government of that Church Episcopal ; 
or a single sentence frpm the writings of any res- 



Successors of the Reformers* 371 

pectable divine in her communion^ which expresses 
a belief i/2 the divine right of diocesan Episcopacy, 
or even a preference for this form of Church order. 
With respect to the Synod of Dort^ every one 
who is acquainted with its history, and with its pub- 
lished Acts^ knows that it was entirely and exclu- 
sively Presbyterian. To assert or insinuate the 
contrary, is to insult the understanding of every 
well-informed man. The ministers who composed 
that Synod, were among the most learned, pious, 
and dignified divines that ever adorned the christian 
Church. In transacting the business entrusted to 
them, they bound themselves by the solemnity of 
an oath^ to adhere strictly to the word of God in all 
their proceedings. And the indisputable fact is, 
that these men^ acting under this awful solemnity^ 
did, among other articles relating to Church govern* 
ment, form and adopt the following : " We believe 
" that this true Church must be governed by that 
*' spiritual policy, which our Lord hath taught us in 
" his xvord ; namely, that there must be Ministers 
" or Pastors, to preach the word of God, and to 
" administer the sacraments ; also Elders and Dea- 
" cons, who, together with the Pastors, form the 
" council of the Church. ■ As for the ministers 
" of God's word, they have equally the same pow- 
" er and authority wheresoever they are ; as they are 
" all ministers of Christ, the only universal Bishop, 
^* and the only Head of the Church"^.'* 

* Confesdon of Faith of the Reformed Churches in the -V<f' 
therlands. Articles 30 and 31, 



3t2 lETTER VIII. 

But Dr. Bowden and Mr. How^ in the face of 
all this unquestionable testimonj^, still contend, that 
the principal members of the Synod of Dort gave 
their suffrage in favour of Episcopacy. In support 
of this assertion, they quote a laconic and equivocal 
reply of Bogerman^ the President of the Synod, to 
Bishop Carleton; and also certain private conversa* 
^ioJis said to have been held by the Bishop with the 
other members of the Synod. But neither of these 
when examined, will be found to justify the use 
which is attempted to be made of them. 

The nature and circumstances of the polite reply 
of President Bogerman^ on which so much stress 
has been laid, were as follows. Bishop Carleton^ 
when the article maintaining the parity of ministers 
came under consideration, rose in his place and op- 
posed its adoption. He declared that diocesan 
Bishops were of divine appointment; that this or- 
der had been retained in the Church from the time 
of the Apostles ; and that he could by no means 
give his sanction to the article proposed. To 
this address the Bishop himself expressly tells us, 
" no answer was made by any'^P And Dr. Hey* 
lin says, of the same speech, that " though it was 
" admitted, and perhaps recorded, it received no 
*' other answer but neglect^ if not scorn withalf." 

Bishop Hall^ however, (though by the way, he 
was not present when this event occurred, having 

* See his Protestation, published after his return, and en- 
titled Appello ad Casarem. 

•J- Hist, of Presbyter, Book 12. p. 400. 



Successors of the Reformers. 373 

retired from the Synod three months before, on ac« 
count of indisposition,) gives a different account of 
the matter. Bishop Carleton himself, tells us that, in 
his speech, besides declaring his belief in the divine 
appointment of Prelacy^ he launched out in praise of 
this form of ecclesiastical government, and spoke 
of its benign effects in England^ in promoting union, 
order, and harmony in the Church of that king- 
dom. To all this, Bishop jffix// says, the only answer 
made was by the President, Bogerman^ who sim- 
ply replied, " Domine^ nos non siimus adeo fwlices.^ 
My Lord^ rue are not so happy^. Now as Bishop 
Carleton^ \vho made the speech, declares that no 
answ^er was given to it by any one ; as Heylin as* 
serts that it was treated with neglect^ if not with 
scorn; and as Bishop i7a// wasnot himself present, 
at this time, in the Synod ; the probability is, that 
he has given an erroneous statement. But suppo* 
sing it to be perfectly correct, to w^hat does it 
amount ? It might have been intended as a delicate 
sarcasfii on the Bishop, for his unseasonable intro- 
duction of this controversy. It might have been 
uttered as a mere compliment to a stranger, who 
was a Prelate, and with whom it was not desirable 
to have any dispute, when the object of the Synod 
was so entirely differenU It might have been 
meant only to convey the idea, that the Church of 
Holland was not so happy as to be in that quiet, 
united^ and orderly state, which had been represent^ 

^ 'HaWs Episcopacy by Divine Rights S;c. Part J. § 4» 
% I 



o74* LETTER VIII. 

ed as existing in the Church of England. At aey 
rate the answer is perfectly equivocal, and furnish- 
es no warrant whatever for the construction of my 
opponents. 

But these gentlemen lay no small stress on an- 
other circumstance. Bishop Carleton^ in the same 
Protestation which was before quoted, informs us, 
that, " in his private discourse with some of the 
" most learned divines of the Synod, he told them 
*' that the troubles of Holland proceeded from their 
" want of Bishops ; and that the Churches of those 
*-\ Provinces would never be quiet until they had 
" Bishops to govern the Clergy." To these re- 
marks, he tells us, they answeretJ, " that they high- 
-" ly esteemed the good order and discipline of the 
" Church of England^ and heartily wished the 
^'* same order v/as established in their country ; but 
'' that they could not hope for it, in the present 
" posture of affairs. They added, that they hoped 
" God would assist them by his grace, and that 
'^' they would contribute with all their might to the 
' establishment of that good order*" " Such," 
the Bishop adds, " was their answer to me. This, 
'^ I think, justifies them sufficiently. It appears 
** that they do not love popular confusion, and a 
" government destitute of all authority." Mr. 
How must really be at a loss for testimony, when 
lie can speak with so much exultation of this an- 
swer. It is nothing to the purpose. The Bishop, 
according to his own account, had been declaiming 
^n the advantages of Episcopal government, and 



^Successors of the Reformers. 3^5 

OQ its influence as he supposed, in promoting the 
tranquillity, and happiness of the Church which 
he represented. To this, the Dutch divines, ac- 
cording to the sanne account, replied, that they had 
a very respectful opinion of the good order and 
discipline of the Church of England^ and heartily 
wished that similar order and discipline were es- 
tablishrfd in their own Church. But what did they 
mean by the " good order'^^ and " discipline'^'^ of the 
Church of England'^ Did they mean her Prelacy ? 
This is so far from being certain that it is not even 
probable. There is every reason to believe they 
only meant to say, that they highly esteemed the 
regular^ settled^ ?Lndi orderly state which the English 
Church had attained ; that they should be glad to 
sec a similar regularity, and quietness established 
among themselves ; but that, amidst so much con- 
fusion, they could hardly expect so happy a result. 
The truth is, the peace of the Church of Holland 
was, at this time, much disturbed by the contro- 
versy with the Remons ' y ants ^ which deeply agita- 
ted both Church and State. In these circumstan- 
ces, nothing was more natural than that the mem- 
bers of the Synod should lament their divisions, 
and express a desire to establish among themselves 
the same quietness and peace which the Church of 
England enjoyed ; and all this they might say 
without having the least wish or preference in fa- 
vour of her Prelacy. 

This, then, is the state of the case. The Re- 
formed Church of Holland was Presbyterian from 



376 LETTER VIII. 

the beginning. By a succession of national Sy- 
nods the doctrine of ministerial parity was asserted, 
published, and maintained, in the most decisive 
manner, not merely as dictated by expediency, but 
also as founded in divine appointment. The Synod 
of Dort spoke the same language, and maintained 
the same doctrine. Nay, with a solemnity which 
had taken place at no preceding Synod, the mem- 
bers of that assembly, under the obligation of an 
oath^ declared, that they considered themselves as 
bound to conform to the Apostolic model of Church 
government, and that this model was Presbyterian. 
And to all this evidence, Mr. How has nothing to 
oppose, but a few equivocal words of some indivi- 
dual members of the Synod, which probably had no 
reference to Prelacy at all. Who, now, let me ask, 
has proved himself most liable to the charges of 
*' extreme imprudence," and of having brought 
forward " puerile" and ^' disingenuous" allegations ? 
Truly charges of this kind come with a very ill 
grace from Mr. How. 

But we have another method of ascertaining the 
real sentiments of some of those Divines who com- 
posed the Synod of Dort^ besides their public con- 
duct in that body. I mean by examining their 
private xvritings^ in which we may take for grant- 
ed they expressed their genuine convictions. From 
such of those writings as I have been able to pro- 
cure, a few short extracts will be presented, and 
will be found conclusive. 

Gomarus^ Professor of Divinity at Gronzngen, 



Successors of the Reformers. Z17 

was one of the most eminent of the Dutch dele- 
gates to that famous Synod. On the subject of 
Episcopacy, he expresses himself in the following 
strong and decisive language. " The designation 
" of Bishops as introduced after the Apostles' 
^' time, is unknown to the Scriptures, in which it 
" signifies the same thing with the Presbyter and 
" Pastor. Where Paul recites the various kinds 
" of Gospel ministers, as in Ephes. 4. 11, he ac* 
" knowledges no such Bishops distinct from Pres- 
" byters, and superior to them. To which pur- 
" pose Jerome'^s judgment is memorable, which is 
" extant in his commentary on the Epistle to Titus 
" I. 1, where, comparing the 5th and 7th verses, 
'' he infers that the Bishop and Presbyter are one 
" and the same* Which point he doth, likewise, 
" (in the same manner that we have done,) de- 
" monstrate from Philip, i. 1, and Acts xx. 28, 
" 29. and other passages connected therewith, con- 
^' eluding all with this weighty assertion, that xvith 
" the ancients^ Bishops and Presbyters were one 
" and the same; until, by degrees^ the care and in- 
" spection w^ere put upon one ; and that the Bi- 
'' shops were set over the Presbyters^ rather by 
" custom than by divine appointment. This cus- 
" torn, continues Gomarus^ did, at last, bring upon 
" the Church, the mischievous dominion of Bishops^ 
" contrary to the Anostle's command*." 

Again, '^ There is no Bishop to be found set 

* Explicate Epist. ad Galatas^ Cap. ii. p. 487'. 
2 I 2 



S7S lETTER VIII. 

" over Presbyters in any place of holy writ. The 
" distinguishing of Bishops from Presbyters, and 
^' setting them over Presbyters, in an authoritative 
^^ Prelacy, took its rxs^from no Divine institution^ 
^' but from human tradition, xvhich had itsfounda" 
" tion inpride^.'*'* 

Polyander^ Thysiiis^ and Walceus^ Professors of 
Divinity in the Universities of Leyden^ Harder-wick^ 
and Middelburg^ were also conspicuous and active 
members of the Synod of Dort. These learned 
Divines were engaged in a joint work, under the 
title of Synopsis Theologice^ which has been long 
highly esteemed in the Church of Holland. Of 
that work, the following strong and decisive passa- 
ges are a specimen. 

" The Apostle calls the same persons Presby* 
*' ters and Bishops indifferently. Of this we have 
" examples, in Acts 20, 28, where he exhorts the 
" Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus to attend to 
" the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made 
" them Bish$ps ; — also in i Timothy 3, 2. where 
^' he describes a Bishop from his qualifications and 
" duties, which same qualifications and duties, the 
" Apostle Peter ascribes to his JelloxU'Presbyters ; 
" so also in his Epistle to the Philippians 1. !• by 
^^ Bishops he evidently understands those who pre- 
" sided over the Church of Philippic in the admin- 
^' istration of the word and discipline ; and these 
** he distinguishes from Deacons who were entrust* 

* Explieat. in i Pet, 5. p. 7'04. 



Successors of the Reformers* 3ir9 

" ed with the Church's treasure, &c. &c." After 
adducing several other instances of a similar kind, 
it is added, " The title oi Bishop in Scripture does 
" not denote the authority of one minister over 
*' other ministers of Christ, or any kind of prero- 
*' gative enjoyed by one over others ; but is mere- 
*' ly used to designate that watch and care over the 
'^ Church which belongs to an individual.'' 

Again, '' The practice, therefore, of investing 
^' one person from among the Presbyters with the 
*' authority of President, and giving him, by way 
" of eminence, the title of Bishops was not a divine, 
" but a 77iere human appointment^ and was brought 
" in after the Apostles' time ; as, after Jerome^ 
*' many of the Pa^i5^,9 themselves confess, particu- 
" larly Lombard^ Gratian^ Cusan^ and others." 

Further, '* The right of choosing Pastors be- 
" longs to the Church, and as well to the body of 
'' the people as to the Elders ; but the right of or- 
" dination belongs to the Presbytery alone. And 
'' accordingly, in ancient times, the election of Pas- 
" tors was made by the suffrages of the whole bo- 
*' dy of the people belonging to a Church ; but the 
*' ordination was performed by one of the Pastors, 
'* in the name of the whole Presbytery, and in the 
" presence of the Church, by the imposition of 
" hands." 

In another place they declare, " Although a few 
" of the first Pastors of our Churches were ordain- 
" ed by Bishops^ by far the greater part have been 
" more recently ordained by Presbyters. The or- 



380 LETTER Vtll. 

" dination of the latttr is quite as valid as that of 
" the formtr; because Bishops and Presbyters 
" were formerly the same thing ; and by divine 
" right, the power of ordaining Pastors equally 
" belonged to both^.'^ 

In the same work, these Divines, in the most 
explicit manner, assert the apostolical institution of 
Ruling Elders and Deacons ; the former to assist 
the Pastor in the exercise of government and diS" 
cipline in each Church ; the latter to take care of 
the poor. And they expressly declare, that they 
consider the Church of Holland^ in retaining these 
officers, as following the example of the Apostolic 
Churchf." 

You will pardon me, my Brethren, for this long, 

and I fear, tedious induction of authorities and 

quotations. It never occurred to viie, before I saw 

Mr. Hoxv^s pamphlet, that it was possible for any 

well-informed man, who valued his reputation^ to 

give such a statement as that gentleman has done 

of the sentiments of the principal divines of the 

Reformed Churches. We now see of what he is 

capable. The next step will probably be to assert, 

that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 

Church in the United States, ever has been, and 

now is, decidedly Prelatical both in its principles 

and practice. For, really, such an assertion would 

not be a whit more unfounded n -rfiy more direct- 

* Synop. Pur. Theologies. B'sputaU \'Li-. §2., j0.o<2, Ci'Z^ 471 
t Ibid, Disputat, XLii. 20. 59, bO, 65, 



Successors of the Reformers. 381 

ly in the face of all authentic testimony, than several 
which I have been called to refute in the foregoing 
pages. It is plain, however, that the n\ore deeply and 
extensively we pursue our inquiries, the stronger and 
brighter appears the evidence in favour of the 
Presbyterian doctrine* It is more and more mani- 
fest, that, in pleading the cause of this doctrine, 
wre are pleading the cause of every Protestant 
Church on earth, excepting that of England^ and 
those who claim descent from her as their Parent. 



( 58^ ) 
LETTER IX. 

Mse and Progress of Prelacy* 

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

X^R, Bowden represents Presbyterians as believ- 
ing that Prelacy was suddenly and violently esta- 
blished ; that *' a wonderful revolution took place, 
" calculated to influence the passions of thousands, 
" producing violent convulsions, and virulent ani- 
" mosities." And expresses great astonishment 
that such a revolution, introduced at once^ should 
not have been more distinctly recorded by the 
early writers. 

This is a total misrepresentation. Presbyterians 
believe and affirm, with yerome, that Prelacy arose 
" by little and little. "^^ They attribute its introduc- 
tion to causes quite sufficient to account for the 
fact, without producing the convulsions and noise 
which fill the imagination of Dr. Botvden. These 
causes were, the facility, the indolence, and the in- 
consideration of some ; the ambition of others ; 
the precedency of standing moderators ; the vene- 
ration paid to senior ministers, and such as were 
of superior talents and influence ; the respect at- 
tached to those who resided in large cities, and 
other considerations of a similar kind. With such 



Kise and Progress of Prelacy^ 383 

Onuses as these incessantly at work, who can fail to 
consider as the most probable of all events, that 
which Dr. B. represents as altogether impossible ? 
But Dr. Bozvden thinks it utterly incredible that 
the clergy in the second or third centuries should 
have been guilty of usurping power, or of strug- 
gling for pre-eminence. If we may believe him 
they were too pious, disinterested and humble, to 
admit the suspicion of selflshness or ambition hav- 
ing any place among them. *' Surely," says he, 
" men of such distinguished virtue and piety as the 
'' Bishops of that period are universally acknow- 
*' ledged to have been, could not have entertained 
^ a thought so inconsistent with a pure conscience, 
*' with peace of mind, and with the hope of future 
^' happiness. Gould men who displayed all the 
" meekness and humility of Christians, have at- 
" tempted a plan of domination so completely at 
" variance with these virtues ? Could men who en- 
" dured every thing for the sake of Christ, violate 
" his sacred institution ? Could men, who, to save 
" themselves from the most excruciating torments, 
" would not offer incense at the idol altars, deiibe- 
^' rately associate for the purpose of acquiring a 
" trifling authority over their brethren ? What ! 
*' conscientious in every thing relating to Christian 
^' purity, to Christian manners, and yet projligate 
" as to the constitution of the Christian church ! 
" Gross inconsistency ! Palpable contradiction !" 
Again-^" What was the motive that influenced a 
^' few of the Presbyters to attempt an assumption 



384 LETTER IX. 

" of superiority over their brethren ? Was it a de-* 
" sire of temporal power ? That was entirely out 
*' of the question, without the aid of civil authori* 
" ty. And every one knows that kind of authority 
^' was exerted for the destruction of the church. 
*' Was it the love of wealth ? None resulted from 
" the acquisition, ot* could result from it. The 
" people were generally poor, and the Bishops, as 
^' well as the Presbyters and Deacons, were main-* 
" tained out of the offerings at the altar ; and 
*' scantij was the fare that proceeded from that 
" source. Was it the love of ease and security P 
" That could not be ; for Episcopal superiority 
^' greatly increased the labours of the Bishops, and 
" exposed them to almost certain destruction. If, 
" then, neither dominion, nor wealth, nor ease, nor 
" security, could possibly be the motives for so 
" daring an attempt, as to deprive the Presbyters 
" of their most sacred rights, those ambitious spi- 
*' rits, as you deem them, must have acted without 
*' any motive, which is evidently inconsistent with 
" the very nature and constitution of the human 
" mind." 

It is really putting one's patience to a very se» 
vere test to find an opponent so frequently allud- 
ing to his own superior '' scholarship*' and read- 
ing, and at the same time permitting himself to 
write in this manner. What ! iio clerical ambi- 
tion? No strife about pre-eminence ? No ecclesi- 
astical usurpation in those early ages ? It would 
have been just as reasonable, and just as true, if he 



Rise and Progress of Prelacy. 385 

had said that the gospel was preached in those 
days by none but aTz^f /^•— But let us attend to a 
few facts. 

Passing by several cases in point which occurred 
during the lives, and under the immediate eye of 
the Apostles, when, as St. Paz// himself assures us, 
the mystery of iniquity had already begun to xvork^ 
let me ask, Was there no spirit of domination ma- 
nifested in the fierce dispute between Victor^ Bishop 
of Rome^ and Polycrates^ of Ephesus^ which took 
place in the second century, as related by Eusebius? 
Was no love of pre-eminence displayed by Cerin- 
thus and Basilides^ whose burning desire was " to be 
" accounted great apostles ?" Did Montanus^ in 
the same century, exhibit no ambition in broaching 
his celebrated heresy? Was Samosatenus^ in the 
third, wholly free from the same charge ? Did De- 
metrius oi Alexandria^ discover nothing of an as- 
piring temper, when he sickened with envy at the 
fame and the success of Origen ? Are there no 
accounts of Novatus having sought, ambitiously and 
fraud ently, to obtain the Bishopric of Rome? Did 
not his contemporary, Felicissimus^ make a vigor- 
ous attempt to supplant Cyprian^ as Bishop of 
Carthage? Was not Cyprian brought in to be 
Bishop in that city, by the influence of the people, 
in opposition to the majority of the Presbyters, 
some of whom were anxious to obtain the place for 
themselves ? And did there not hence arise fre- 
quent collisions between him and them, ann at 
length an open rupture ? I ask, are any of these 

2 K 



386 LETTER IX. 

things related in the early history of the Church ? 
And can any man, with such records before him, 
lay his hand on his heart, and assert that there 
were no symptoms of a spirit of ambition and do- 
mination in those times ? 

But I will not content myself with this general 
reference to the early conflicts of selfishness and 
ambition. The following specific quotations will 
be more than sufficient, if I do not mistake, to co- 
ver Dr. BQwden w^ith confusion. 

Hennas^ one of the earliest Fathers whose wri- 
tings are extant, says, in his Pastor^ " As for those 
*' who had their rods green, but yet cleft; they 
*' are such as were always faithful and good ; but 
" they had some envy and strife among themselves, 
'^ concerning dignity and pre-eminence. Now all 
" such are vain and without understanding, as con- 
" tend with one another about these things. Ne- 
" vertheless, seeing they are otherwise good, if, 
** when they shall hear these commands, they 
** shall amend themselves, and shall, at my persua- 
" sion, suddenly repent ; they shall, at last, dwell 
" in the tower, as they who have truly and worthily 
*^ repented. But if any one shall again return to 
'' his dissentions^, he shall be shut out of the 
" tower, and lose his life. For the life of those 
" who keep the commandments of the Lord, con- 
" sists in doing what they are commanded ; not 
" in principality^ or in any other dignity^.^'* 

* Simil 8. § 7. 



Rise and Progress of Prelacy. 387 

Hegisippus^ who lived in the second century, and 
who was the first Father who undertook to com- 
pose a regular ecclesiastical history, writes thus. 
" When James^ the just, had been martyred for 
*' the same doctrine which our Lord preached, 
'^ Simon^ the son of Cleophas^ was constituted Bi- 
" shop with universal preference, because he was 
*^ the Lord's near kinsman. Wherefore they cal- 
" led that Church a pure virgin, because it was 
•' not defiled with corrupt doctrine. But Thebidi^ 
" because he was not made Bishops endeavoured to 
" corrupt the Church ; being one of the seven 
*^ heretics among the people, whereof was Simon^ 
" of whom the Simonians^.'*^ 

Dr. Boxvden represents the age of Cyprian as 
among the very purest periods of the christian 
Church, and quotes that Father with a frequency 
and a confidence which evince the highest respect 
for his authority. The following passages will 
show how far the illustrious Pastor of Carthage 
considered the Bishops of his day as beyond the 
reach of selfishness and ambition. 

" A long continuance of peace and securityf 
^' had relaxed the rigour of that holy discipline 
*' which was delivered to us from above. All were 
" set upon an immeasurable increase of gain ; and, 
" forgetting how the first converts to our religion 

* Seejrag'inents of this writer preserved in Eusebius, Lib. 
IV. Cap. 22. 

f They had been free from persecution only about thirty- 
eight yeai's. 



388 LETTER IX. 

" had behaved under the personal direction and 
" care of the Lord's Aposdes, or how all ought 
" in after times to conduct themselves; the love 
'* of tnoney was their darling passion, and the mas- 
" ter spring of all their actions. The religion of 
" the clergy slackened and decayed ; the faith of 
" priests and deacons grew languid and inactive ; 
" works of charity were discontinued ; and an 
" universal licence and corruption prevailed. Di- 
^' vers Bishops^ who should have taught, both by 
" their example and persuasion, neglecting their 
" high trust, and their commission from above, 
" entered upon the management of secular affairs ; 
" and leaving their chair, and their charge with it, 
" wandered about, from place to place in different 
" provinces, upon mercantile business, and in quest 
" of disreputable gain. Thus the poor of the 
" Church were miserably neglected, while the Bi* 
" shops^ who should hav^ taken care of them, 
^^ were intent upon nothing but their own private 
" P'^ofit^ which they were forward to advance at 
" any rate^ and by any> even xh^ foulest methods^.^'^ 
Speaking of Cornelius^ who had been made Bi' 
shop^ Cijprian^ says, *^ In the next place, he neither 
'' desired^ nor canvassed for the dignity conferred 
" upon him ; much less did he invade ity as some 
" others would, who were actuated by a great and 
" lofty conceit of their own qualifications ; but 
" peaceably and modestly, like such as are called 
" of God to this office. — Instead of using violence j 

* De Lopsis, § 4. 



Rise and Progress of Prelacy* 389 

" as a certain person in this case hath done^ to be 
^' made a Bishop, he suffered violence, and was 
" raised to his dignity by force and compulsion^.'' 

The same Father, in the same Epistle, has the 
following passage. " Unless you can think him a 
*' Bishop, who, when another was ordained by six- 
^' teen of his brethren Bishops, would obtrude upon 
" the Church a spurious and foreign Bishop, or- 
^' dained by a parcel of renegadoes and deser- 
" ters ; and that by canvassing and intriguing for 
" itf." 

Cyprian speaks also of a certain Deacon who had 
been deposed from his " sacred Diaconate, on ac- 
" count of his fraudulent and sacrilegious misap- 
'* plication of the Church's money to his own pri- 
*•' vate use ; and by his denial of the widows' and 
'^ orphans' pledges deposited with him|.'* 

Grigen^ the contemporary of Cyprian^ more than 
once lashes the clergy of his day for their vices. 
The following passage is surely strong enough, 
were there no other, to take away all doubt. " If 
" Christ justly wept over ferusalem^ he may noxv^ 
*' on much better grounds, weep over the Churchy 
" which was built to the end that it might be an 
" house of prayer ; and yet, through the flthy 
*' usury of some, (and I wish these were not even 
" the Pastors of the people,) is made a den of 
" thieves. But I think that that which is written 
** concerning the sellers of doves, doth agree to 
" those who commit the Churches to greedy^ ty 

* Epist. S5. t ^^'*^- t JEpist, 5% 
2 K 2 



390 lETTER iX. 

" rannical^ unlearned^ and irreligious Bishops^ 
^^ Presbyters^ and Deacons^.'^'* The same Father, 
elsewhere declares, " We are such as that we 
" sometimes in pride go beyond even the wicked- 
" est of the princes of the gentiles ; and are just at 
^^ the point of procuring for ourselves splendid 
" guards^ as if we were kings, making it our study 
" moreover to be a terror to others, and giving 
*^ them, especially if they be poor, very uneasy ac- 
** cess^ We are to them, when they come and 
" seek any thing from us, more cruel than are even 
" tyrants^ or the crudest princes to their suppli- 
" cants. And you may see, even in the greater 
" part of lawfully constituted Churches, especially 
" those of greater cities, how the Pastors of God's 
" people, suffer none, though they were even the 
^' chiefest of Christ's disciples, to be equal with 
*' themselvesf.'' 

EusebiuSj who lived in the next century, writes 
in the same strain concerning the age of Cyprian* 
" When, through too much liberty, we fell into 
" sloth and negligence ; when every one began to 
" envy and backbite another; when we waged, 
** as it were, an intestine war amongst ourselves, 
*' with words as with swords; Pastors rushed 
*' against Pastors^ and people against people, and 
" strife and tumult, deceit and guile advanced to 
** the highest pitch of wickedness— Our Pastors, 
*' despising the rule of religion, strove mutual* 
** ly with one another^ studying nothing more 
• Jn Matt. p. 441. f ^^if^* P- 420. 



Rise and Progress of Frelacij. 391 

" than how to outdo each other in strife, emula- 
'' tions, hatred, and mutual enmity ; proudly 
" usurping principalities^ as so many places of 
" tyrannical domination. Then the Lord covered 
" the daughter of Zion with a cloud in bis an- 

Nay, Archbishop Whitgift^ with all his Episco- 
pal partialities, was constrained to acknowledge 
the ambitious and aspiring temper which disgrac- 
ed many Bishops even as early as the time of Cy- 
prian. " There was great contention," says he, 
*' among the Bishops in the council of Nice^ inso- 
" much that even in the presence of the Emperor, 
" they ceased not to libel one against another. 
" What bitterness and cursing was there between 
" Epiphanius and Chrysostom I What jarring be- 
" tween Jerome and Augustine I Bishops shall not 
" now need to live by pilling and pollings as it 
" seems they did in Cyprian's time ; for he coro- 
" plaineth thereof in his sermon De Lapsis'fJ^^ 

With Whitgift agrees his cotemporary Rigaltius^ 
who was so much distinguished for his learned 
Annotations on the works of Cyprian. Speaking 
of Cyprian's age, and of the Deacon's office, he 
says, " By little and little, and from small begin- 
'* nings, a kingdom^ and a love of dominion entered 
" into the Church. — In the Apostles' time there 
" were only Deacons ; Cyprian's age admitted sub-' 

• Hist. Eccles. Lib. viii. Cap. i. 

•J- Defence of his Ansv!€r against Cartvinght, p. 472. &c. 



392 LETTER IX. 

" deacons ; the following age Arch-deacons^ and 
" then Arch'bishops and Patriarchs^^ 

These extracts are produced, riot to blacken the 
ministerial character ; but to establish the fact^ 
which Dr. Bowden denies, that clerical ambition, 
and clerical encroachments were familiarly known, 
even during that period which he pronounces the 
purest that was ever enjoyed by the christian 
Church. I certainly have no interest, and can 
take no pleasure in depicting the foibles, the strife, 
and the vices, of the clergy in any age. But when 
assertions are made respecting them as directly 
contradictory to all history, as they are contrary to 
the course of depraved human nature ; and especi- 
ally when these assertions are triumphantly employ- 
ed as arguments to establish other assertions equal- 
ly unfounded, it is time to vindicate the truth. To 
do this, in the present case, is an easy task. The 
man who, after perusing the foregoing extracts, 
can dare to say, that the clergy of the first three 
centuries, were all too pious and disinterested to 
admit the suspicion, that they aspired to titles and 
honors, and intrigued for the attainment of Epis- 
copal chairs, must have a hardihood of incredulity, 
or an obliquity of perception truly extraordinary. 
We have seen that Hermas plainly refers to cer- 
tain ecclesiastics of his time, who had " envy and 
" strife among themselves concerning dignity and 
^^ pre-eminence." Hegesippus goes further, and 
points out the case of a particular individual, who 
ambitiously aspired to the office of Bishop, and 



jRise and Progress of Prelacy. 393 

was exceedingly disappointed and mortified at not 
obtaining it. Cyprian expressly declares not only 
that a spirit of intrigue, of worldly gain, and of ec- 
clesiastical domination, existed a.vaon^ the clergy of 
his day, but that such a spirit was awfully preva^ 
lent among them. Eusebius gives us similar in- 
formation in still stronger terms. Archbishop 
Whitgift makes the same acknowledgment, more 
particularly with respect to the Bishops of that pe- 
riod. And even Dr. Bowden himself, forgetting 
his own assertions, unwarily acknowledges, in seve- 
ral other parts of his work, that a number of per- 
sons, as early as the days of Cyprian^ and before 
his time, who aspired to the office of Bishop, and 
who used every effort and artifice to attain it, on 
being disappointed, distinguished themselves as 
heretics or schismatics^ and became the pests of the 
Church. Was there no spirit of ambition and do- 
mination among such men ? Why did they aspire 
to the office of Bishop ? Was there nothing in 
that office to -attract their regard, or to excite their 
cupidity ? Or did they act without motive ? Sure- 
ly this gentleman needs to have some one at hand 
to refresh his memory, and to prevent him from 
warring against his own cause. But a man must 
be wary and ingenious indeed, who can be consis- 
tent when truth is against him. 

Still, however, the question recurs; What, in 
those days of persecution and peril, before Chris- 
tianity was established ; when the powers of the 
world were leagued against it ; and when every 



394 LETTER IX. 

christian pastor especially held a station of much 
self-denial and danger, what could indace any sel- 
fish or ambitious man to desire the pastoral office, 
and to intrigue for the extension of the powers 
and honours of that office ? When my opponents 
can tell me what induced Judas Iscariot to follow 
Christ, at the risk of his life ; when they can tell 
me what impelled Diotrephes to desire the pre* 
eminence in the Church ; or what were the objects 
oi Demas^ HymenceuSj and AlexaJider^ in their rest- 
less and ambitious conduct, while Calvary was yet 
smoking with the blood of their crucified Lord, 
and while their own lives were every moment ex- 
posed to the rage of persecution ; — when my oppo- 
nents can tell me what actuated these men, I shall 
be equally ready to assign a reason for the early 
rise and progress of Prelacy. 

But there is no need of retreating into the ob- 
scurity of conjecture, when causes enough to satis- 
fy every mind ma}^ easily be assigned. If Dr. BoW' 
den does not know that there are multitudes of 
men, in all ages, in the Church, and out of it, who 
are ready to court distinction, merely for distinc- 
tion's sake, and at the evident hazard of their lives, 
he is less acquainted both with human nature and 
with history than I have been accustomed to sup- 
pose him. But this is not all. It is a notorious 
fact, notwithstanding all the round assertions of 
Dr. Bowden to the contrary, that the office of Bi- 
shop, even in very early times, had much to attract 
the cupidity as well as the ambition of selfish and 



Rise ajid Progress of Prelacy. 395 

aspiring men. The revcjiues of the primitive 
Church were large and alluring. It is granted 
that, during the first three centuries, the Church 
held little or no real property ; as the Roman laws 
did not allow any person to give or bequeath real 
estates to ecclesiastical bodies, without the consent 
of the Senate or the Emperor. The contributions^ 
however, which were made to the Church, for the 
support of the Clergy, the poor, Stc. were immense. 
During the Apostolic age, the proceeds of the sale 
of real estates were devoted to ecclesiastical and 
charitable purposes, and laid at the Apostles' feet. 
We find the Gentile Churches contributing liberal- 
ly to the relief of the Churches of Judea^ in Acts 
XI. 29. Rom» XV. 26. i Corinth, xvi. 1. and 2 
Corinth, viii. The same liberality manifested 
itself in subsequent times^. So ample were the 
funds of the Church of Rorne^ about the middle of 
the second century, that they were adequate not 
only to the support of her own clergy and poor 
members ; but also to the relief of other Churches, 
and of a great number of christian captives in the 

* One cause of the liberality of the primitive christians in 
their contributions to the church, was the notion which 
generally prevailed, that the end of the ^orld was at hand. 
This notion was adopted by some of the early Fathers, and 
propagated among* the people with great diligence. Cy- 
prian taught, in his day, with great confidence, that the 
dissolution of the world was but a few years distant. Epist. 
ad Thibart. The tendency of this opinion to diminish the 
self-denial of parting with temporal wealth is obvious. See 
Father Paulas Hist, of Benefices and Rcceniie^i, Chap. II. 



396 LETTER IX. 

several provinces, and of such as were condemned 
to the mines*. Such was the wealth of the same 
Church, in the third century, that it was consider- 
ed as an object not unworthy of Imperial rapacity. 
By order of the Emperor Decius^ the Roman 
Deacon Laurentius was seized, under the expecta* 
tion of finding in his possession the treasures of 
the Church, and of transferring them to the coffers 
of the Emperor: But the vigilant Deacon, fearing 
the avarice of the tyrant, had distributed them, 
as usual, when a persecution was expected. PrU' 
dentins introduces an officer of the Emperor, thus 
addressing the Deacon, ^od Ccesaris scis^Ccesari 
da^ nempe jnstum postulo ; nifallor^ hand idlam tuus 
signat Deus pecuhiam* i. e. Give to Cccsar what 
you know to be hts^ I ask what is just ; for iflmis» 
take not^ your God coins no money'\. ' 

Now the revenues of the Churches, whether 
great or small, were at the disposal of the Bishops. 
The Deacons executed their orders. Of course 
they had every opportunity of enriching themselves 
at the expense of the Church. And that they em- 
braced this opportunity, is attested by Cyprian^ 
who laments the fact, and is of opinion that the 
persecution which took place in the reign of De^ 
cius^ was intended by God to punish a guilty peo- 
ple, and to purge this corruption from his Church J, 

* Father PauPs Hist, of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Reve- 
nues, Chap, iii 

f Prudent, in Lib. de Coronis. Father PauPs History of 
Ecclesiastical Benefices ajid Revenues, Chap. iii. 

i: See his discourse, De Lapsis before quoted. 



Rise and Progress of Prelacy. 397^ 

And yet, in the face of all this testimony, Dr. BoW' 
den has permitted himself to assert, that there was 
no temptation^ either before or during the age of 
Cyprian^ to induce any man to desire the office of a 
Bishop ; and especially that it was impossible for 
any to be moved by the love of xvealth to seek that 
office, because no acquisitions of that kind " result- 
ed from it, or CGuld result from it!" It is really 
amazing that gentlemen can so entirely close their 
eyes against the light of all authentic history. If 
Dr. BoTvdcn were an ardent and incautious young 
man who had but lately commenced the examination 
of this subject, he might be pardoned on the score 
of ignorance ; but to a gendeman of his long expe- 
rience and standing in the controversy, it is diffi- 
cult to suppose this apology applicable. 

One of the arguments which I adduced in sup» 
port of the gradual introduction of Prelacy, was 
the fact, that Metropolitans^ or Archbishops^ though 
acknowledged on all hands not to have been insti- 
tuted by the Apostles, were yet early brought in 
by human ambition ; while, at the same time, the 
early records are so scanty, that we are unable 
to pronounce when they were first introduced. 

To this Dr. Boxuden gives two answers. The 
first is^ that we cmi decide, with certainty, when 
the authority of Metropolitans took its rise : And 
the second^ that the cases are by no means parallel, 
and that the argument, even if the facts were ad- 
mitted, is of no force. 

2 L 



^98 LETTER IX. 

To establish the first point Dr. B. quotes a short 
passage from Dr» Cave^ a divine of the eighteenth 
century, who gives it as his opinion^ that Me- 
tropoHtans were introduced ^' not long after the 
" apostolic age, when sects and schisms broke in 
'' apace, and when controversies were multiplied 
'^ between particular Bishops." But was Cave a 
primithe Father ? What authority had he to de- 
cide such a question ? And what did he mean by 
the expression " not long after the apostolic age ?" 
Did he mean two, three, or four centuries ? All 
is vague and conjectural. Besides, from this pas- 
sage it leaks out, after all Dr. Boivdeii'^ care to 
conceal it, or rather his explicit denial of the fact, 
that there were sects^ and schisms^ and jar rings 
among the Bishops, ^^ not long after the apostolic 
age." In support of the same assertion. Dr. Bow^ 
den quotes a longer passage from Bingham^ an- 
other divine of the eighteenth century, who, after 
expressing his agreement with Caxte^ adds, " Per- 
^^ haps the office of Metropolitan took its rise from 
^' that common respect and deference, which was 
" usually paid by the rest of the Bishops to the 
^^ Bishops of the civil metropolis in every pro- 
" vince." He then produces, what Dr. B. calls 
" sufficient evidence," that this office existed in 
the second century ; that there are traces of its com- 
mencement as early as the time of Irenceus ; that 
it advanced gradually ; and that it was not until 
about the time of the Council of Nice that the 
term Metropolitan came into frequent use. Now, 



Rise and Progress of Prelacy. 399 

though Dr. Boivden contents himself with very 
slender proof; and though his confident conclusion, 
that " there is not the least difficulty in determin- 
ing when Primates or Metropolitans took their rise 
in the christian Church," is, in the connection in 
which it stands, truly ludicrous ; yet, allowing it to 
be correct, does not every discerning reader per- 
ceive that he is unwittingly confirming ray argu- 
ment ? He concedes, that Metropolitans were 
not instituted by the Apostles ; and he also 
concedes, that they w^ere brought in, by human 
contrivance^ soon after the Apostolic age ; but 
that they were not spoken of familiarly, under 
this tide, nntA near the middle of tht fourth cen- 
tury. But how they were introduced ; by what 
means ; whether with or without opposition^ neither 
he nor the divines whom he quotes as his authori- 
ties, have any thing more than conjecture to offer. 
And is not this exactly the ground on which I as- 
sert the fact to stand ? With whom is this gentle- 
man contending ? 

But Dr. Boxuden goes further, and contends, in 
the second i^Vdct^ that, '^ even if it were impossible 
to determine the time when Metropolitans first ap- 
peared in the church, there would be no parallel 
between this difSculty, and the one relating to Epis- 
copacy.'^ But w^hy no parallel? The office of 
Metropolitan was a grade of ecclesiastical pre-emi- 
nence, as well as that of ordinary Bishop. Now, 
if it be granted, that the former office vjas intro- 
duced by human contrivance ; that it \y^s gradual- 



400 



LETTER IX, 



/j/ brought in ; that It was introdaced without any 
known opposition and noise ; why might not the 
same facts have occurred wiih respect to Prelacy? 
Dr. Boivden^ indeed, asserts, that the office of Me* 
tropoUtan was, in the beginning, a mere presidency^ 
introduced for the sake of convenience and order; 
that, in this stage of its rise, there was no material 
encroachment on tlie rights of others ; and, of 
course, nothing that had a tendency to excite 
ah^rm, resentujent, or opposition. And is not this 
exactly what v/e say concerning the rise of Prelacy? 
In all these respects, indeed, Dr. B. would persuade 
us, that the rise of Metropolitanism was wholly un- 
like that of Prelacy. But for this we have only hi^ 
v/ord. He does not produce even a shadow of 
proof. On the contrary we maintain, that Prelacy 
arose, with very little variation, in the same man- 
ner in which he represents metropolitanism as hav- 
ing been brought in. And the acknowledged fact^ 
that the latter was early introduced, without excit- 
ing, so far as we know, any extensive opposition 
or noise, we consider as conclusive evidence that 
the former might have arisen in the same manner. 
We suppose, that the first steps, in both cases, w^re 
small, and studiously ordered so as to excite as lit- 
de attention as possible ; that the introduction of 
new names was, for a considerable time, carefully 
avoided; and that the object was, in fact, fully 
gained, before the mask was thrown off, and the 
purpose avowed. 
Dr. B. insists thai the rise of Metropolitans was 



Rise and Progress of Frelacij. 401 

not as likely to excite alarm and opposition as that 
of Bishops. But why not? Were not Prelates as 
likely to perceive and take the alarm, when some 
of their own number assumed a superiority over 
the rest, as Presbyters were, w-hen some of their 
number gradually gained a pre-eminence among 
their brethren ? Were Prelates less discerning, 
less awake to encroachments, or less conscientious 
in guarding against them, than Presbyters ? But, 
says Dr. Boxvden^ in the case of Metropolitans, 
there was no usurpation of any particular rite or 
pozver ; whereas, in the rise of Prelacy, according 
to the ideas of Presbyterians, there was a direct 
usurpation of the ordaining and confirming' pov/er, 
which before belonged to all Presbyters in com- 
mon. The latter, therefore, in his opinion, was 
much less likely to gain undisputed admittance 
than the former. But in this reasoning Dr. BoW'- 
den betrays a total misunderstanding of what Pres- 
b3nerians believe. They do not suppose, or admit, 
that the usurpation of the ordaining power w^as the 
first step, or even among the first steps in the rise 
of Prelacy. They suppose tlvat an occasional and 
then a stated presidency were the first steps ; and 
that the power of ordaining was not taken entirely 
out of the hands of Presbyters, until several centu- 
ries after the claims of Prelacy commenced. 

The cases, then, after all that Dr. Boxvden has 

said to the contrary, are strictly parallel. The 

time and manner of the rise of Metropolitans, are 

left as completely undeiined in early history, as are 

2 L 2 



*02 LETTER IX. 

the time and manner of the rise of Prelates. In both 
cases, by a careful comparison of testimony, we can 
eome, with certainty, near the truth, but nothing 
more. In both cases, the rise was evidently gra* 
dual. In both cases, the first steps were small^ and 
dictated, as those concerned were made to believe^ 
by convenience, expediency, and even necessity, 
rather than by ambition. And, in both cases, it 
was not until several hundred years, when long 
habit and prescription had reconciled every mind 
to the usurpation, that its claims were openly and 
unreservedly urged. 

It is of some importance to advert to two or 
three other facts. Although Metropolitans^ when 
first introduced, appear to have been, as Dr. B. 
supposes, nothing more than mere Presidents or 
Moderators ; yet it is manifest that they very soon 
became something more. I know not when those 
writings, called the Apostolical Canons^ were com« 
posed. Dr. B. thinks in the second and third cen- 
turies. But one thing I know, that, whenever they 
were composed, the 34th Canon decrees, " that 
" the Bishops of every nation ought to know him 
" who is first among them, and acknowledge him 
" for their head^ and do nothing of moment with- 
" out his consent^ and he nothing without their'*s.^^ 
Here is a power greatly exceeding that of a mere 
presiding equal. How was this power acquired ? 
How could it be acquired so soon^ and when, if we 
may believe Dr. B. no such thing as clerical am- 



Rise and Progress of Prelacij. 403 

hitlon existed ? Above all, how could it be ac» 
quired so quietlij^ and with so little opposition^ as 
that the several steps of its progress should not be 
found recorded by the early Fathers ? Again ; in 
the age of Cyprian^ we find Sub-deacons and Rea^ 
ders spoken of as distinct orders of Clergy^ who 
had each a distinct ordination^^ How could these 
orders be introduced, in an age, which, according 
to Dr. B. was so perfectly pure, and so strict in its 
adherence to apostolic precedent ? How could 
Readers and Sub-deacons be ranked among the 
Clergy ? This single fact is enough to show, that 
before the age of Cyprian^ undisguised innovation 
had found its way into the Church ; and also that^ 
\^hen Deacons are spoken of, by some of the Fa- 
thers, as minister s^-^S. the word, and as of the or- 
der of Clergy^ it affords not the smallest presump- 
tion that such was the apostolic model. 

As another proof, that a spirit of ambition and 
of ecclesiastical encroachment, early began to ap- 
pear in the Church, I mentioned the rise and pro- 
gress of the Papacy. I observed, that the anti- 
christian claims of the Bishop of Rome began as 
early as the time of Irencstis^ and might be consi- 
dered as gradually rising from that period, until he 
was at length established and acknowledged as 
universal Bishop* And I observed, moreover, 
that, '' although the most impartial and teamed 

* Cyprian, Epist. 8. and 59. 



404- LETTER IX. 

" divines may and do differ among themselves in 
" fixing the several dates of the rise, progress, and 
*•• establishment of this great spiritual usurper ; yet 
" the fact^ that he did thus rise and advance, 
*' and erect a tyrannical throne in the Church, 
" contrary to all that might have been expect- 
" ed both from the piety and the selfishness of 
*' the early Christians, is doubted by none." 

In answer to this argument Dr. Boa>den ventures 
to assert, that ^^ there is not, before the seventh cert' 
" tury\ the least trace of any system of policy in 
*^ the Holy See^ (that of Rome^J to establish 
" its claim of superiority over other Bishops.'' Of 
an assertion of this kind, I really feel at a loss what 
to think, or what to say. That it is an assertion 
which direcdy contradicts all history, I need not 
stay to demonstrate. Every well-informed man 
knows it to be so. The only question which can 
arise is, how Dr. Bowden could have ventured to 
advance it ? 

By the P(r^/?c7a/, strictly speaking, is meant that 
claim which the Bishop of Rome has long made of 
being, as such, the successor of Peter^ superior to 
all other Bishops, and the visible Head of the 
Church. No man in his senses ever supposed that 
this system of ecclesiastical usurpation was either 
claimed or acknowledged all at once. It had a 
rise, a progress, and a completion. That it did not 
reach its summit until the seventh century, I have 
no hesitation in granting. Nor have I ever pen- 
ned a sentence inconsistent with this acknowledg- 



Rise and Progress of Prelacy. 405 

ment. But that it bega?! to rise several centuries 
before, every Protestant historian that I have ever 
met with, has unequivocally stated : And that it 
made slow, but steady progress, from the time of 
Victor to that of Boniface^ insomuch, that at the end 
of every successive century, it was perceived to 
have sensibly gained ground, I tc^ok for granted, 
before I saw Dr. BotvdeiH^ book, that every man 
who regarded his reputation, either for discernment 
of candour, would readily allow. Nay, Dr. BoW' 
den himself, if I understand him, acknowledges 
that the power of the Popes was gradually assum- 
ed; for " the several epochs oi their increasing 
powder," he tells us, have been so distincdy marked, 
that we can be at no loss to ascertain them. And 
yet he says, " there was not, before the seventh 
" century, the least trace of any system of policy 
^' in the Holy See to establish its claim of superiori- 
^* ty over other Bishops !" Unless this gentleman 
can retreat behind some unusual signification of 
terms, I know not how he can escape very serious 
charges from every discerning reader. 

I consider the following facts, then, as perfectly 
established — viz. that as early as the second and 
third centuries there w'as quite enough clerical am* 
bttiofi in the Church to account for the rise of pre- 
lacy ; that the acknowledged rise of Metropolitans^ 
during that period, is a proof, at once, that there 
was a disposition among many of the clergy to as- 
pire after pre-^emineuce, and that it v/as by no 



406 LETTER IX. 

means an impossible thing so far to hoodwink and 
cajole others, as to obtain it ; and that the begin- 
ning, progress, and establishment of the Papal 
power, is quite as difficult to be accounted for oa 
Episcopal principles, as the introduction of Prelacy 
by human authority. But, if it be fact, that there 
were materials enough in the clergy of that age, 
and circumstances enough in the times, to generate 
irregular ambition ; and if other facts demonstrate 
that they did cherish this ambition ; that they did 
thus aspire and encroach ; then we are surely war- 
ranted in inferring that the human invention and 
introduction of prelacy, was not only a possible^ but 
a very probable event. 

Among the numerous facts which prove that dio- 
cesan Episcopacy is an innovatiGn on the apostolic 
model, and that it was graduallij introduced, I 
mentioned in my former letters that ministerial 
parity continued longest in those parts of the 
Church which were at the greatest distance from 
the capital cities. As an instance, to illustrate this 
remark, I observed, that *^^ the Churches in Scot- 
" land remained Presbyterian in their government, 
'^ from the introduction of Christianity into that 
" country, in the second century, until the fifth 
^^ century, when Palladhis succeeded in introduc- 
" ing diocesan Bishops." This fact Dr. Boxvden 
entirely denies. Let us see on what evidence it 
rests. That the gospel was introduced into North 
Britain before the ffth century, is evident from 



Rise and Ft^ogress of Prelacy. 407 

TertuJliarij who says, " The places of Britain to 
" which the Remans could not h.ave access, are 
" notwithstanding subject to Chnst^." Fordon^ 
a Scotch historian, who wrote in the fourteenth cen- 
tury, and who w^as no Presbyterian, on the one 
hand declares, (as Dr, B, acknowledges,) that the 
Scots received the christian faith in the year of our 
X.ord 203 ; and on the other asstrts, (what Dr. B. 
has not acknowledged,) that '' Before the coming 
'' of Falladms^ the Scots^ following the custom of 
'^ the primitive Church, had teachers of the faith, 
" and dispensers of the sacraments, who were only 
" Presbyters or Monksf." This statement is 
confirmed by Major^ another Scottish historian, 
who wrote about the beginning of the sixteenth 
century, and who lived and died a friend of prelacy. 
He declares, '*• The Scots were instructed in the 
faith, by Priests and Monks, without Bishops^." 
Boethhis^ a third historian of Scotland^ who was con- 
temporary with Major^ and also a prelatist, still 
more explicitly says, " Falladius was the first 
" who exercised any hierarchal power among the 
^' Scots^ being ordained their Bishop by the Pope, 
" whereas, before, their Priests were, bv the suff- 
" rages of the people, chosen out of the Monks and 
" Culdees^." Frosper Aqiiitancrus^ in his Chronic 
cle^ has these words — '•• Falladius is ordained by 
" Pope Ccelestine^ for the Scots^ who had already 
" believed in Christ, and is sent to them to be their 

* Contra Jud, Cap. vii. f Hist. Lib. iii. Cap. 8. 

i De Gestis Sector. Lib. ii. Cap, 2. § Scot. Hist. Lib. vi. 



40$ LETTER I^. 

" Jirst Bishop." Palladius^ according to this wri^ 
ter, did not introduce the gospel aajong the Scots ; 
they believed in Christ before he was sent to them \ 
bat he was the first Bishops or Prelate^ that they 
ever had. The same fact is attested by Cardinal 
Baronms^ who says, " All men agree that this na- 
^^ tion, (the Scots^J had Palladius their iirst Bi- 
*^ shop from Pope Ccclestine^.'^^ 

Dr. Bowden has no other method of evading the 
force of this evidence, but by insinuating, (as others, 
who were perplexed by the argument, had done 
before him,) that by the Scots these writers meant 
the Irish I This evasion is too ridiculous to be 
seriously refuted. It contradicts the most authen- 
tic historyf . And if Dr. B. will take the trouble 
to consult his own Episcopal historians. Skinner and 
GoodallX^ he will be satisfied, that in adopting this 
notion, he has been led astray by blind guides. 
But, suppose that it were even so ; what advantage 
to Dr. Boxvden^s cause would result from this dis- 
covery ? Would it not be a fact equally against 
him, if it were found that the Churches of Ire* 
land^ instead of Scotland^ were, under the govern- 
ment of Presbyters, without Prelates, for more thaa 
200 years after their being first planted ? 

* Annal 429. 

\ Cardinal Baronius expressly distinguishes between the 
visits of Palladius to Scotland, and Ireland, His visit to the 
former country, he mentions in the manner cited above : 
that to the latter, he speaks of in a subsequent paragraph. 

% Skinner"* s Ecclesiastical History of Scotiand, ..ettcl' i.— 
Goodall^s Introduction to the History and Antiquities of Scot- 
land. Chapters 2. 7. and 16. 



Rise and Progress of Prelacy. 409 

Di\ BowdeUj in attempting to show the improba- 
bility that Prelacy was introduced after the Apos- 
tolic age, as a measure of human expediency^ still 
insists that, if it were introduced at all, it must 
have been very suddenly. To corroborate this 
assertion, he represents some of the ablest Pres- 
byterian Divines who have written on the subject, 
as acknowledging that Prelacy had been brought 
in as early as the middle of the second ce7itury. 
He assures us, more than once, that, among others, 
the learned Blondel concedes the existence of Pre- 
lacy as early as the year of our Lord 140, which 
was within fifty years of the death of the last 
Apostle. This is a misrepresentation ; and a 
misrepresentation so extraordinary, that I know 
not how to account for it but by supposing that 
Dr. Bowden never saw BlondePs far-famed work. 
Whatever Dr. B. may say to the contrary, 
Blo'ndel does not make such a concession as he 
imputes to him. The passage to which Dr. B. 
no doubt, refers, is found in the Preface to the 
Apology; and its import is, that, about the 
year 140, according to the best light the au- 
thor had been able to attain, one of the steps 
toward the establishment of Prelacy was taken, 
which con sted in choosing standing moderators. 
If by Bishops be understood, not what the Scrip- 
tures and the Presbyterian Church mean by that 
title, but what Dr. Boxvden and his friends mean, 
an order of clergy, who were alone invested with 
the power of ordination ; then it is perfectly mani- 

2 M 



410 LETTER IX. 

fest to all who ever perused BloiidePs work, that 
its grand scope is to show the direct contrary of 
that which Dr. Bowden ascribes to him ; and that 
for this purpose, he quotes Cyprian^ TertuUian^ 
Origen^ and still later Fathers, who lived long af- 
ter the year 140, to show that, in their day ^ Episco- 
pacy, in the prelatical sense of that word, was not 
introduced. In short, Blondelh whole book is 
vvTitten to prove that Prelacy was not an apostolic 
institution ; that it was brought into the Church 
gradually ; and that it was several hundred years 
in gaining an establishnient. Considering the fre- 
quency and positiveness with which Dr- Bowden 
undertakes to state the testimony of Blondel^he 
certainly ought to have understood it better. 

Dr. B. also asserts that Salmasius^ an acute and 
learned advocate of ministerial parity, makes a con- 
cession of the same kind with that which he as- 
cribes to Blondel. I have never seen the Walo 
Messalinus of that celebrated Presbyterian ; and 
cannot undertake with confidence to say that Dr. 
B. has misrepresented him also; but I strongly 
suspect this to be the case, and shall certainly re- 
quire, after all that I have seen, better evidence of 
the contrary than his assertion. The learned Cha- 
mier and Du Moulin are also quoted by Dr. B. as 
making still more pointed and important conces- 
sions. But as he has not chosen to inform us ivhere 
these concessions are to be found, I consider my- 
self as liberated from all further obligatior^ to no- 



Hise and Progress of Pre'acy. 411 

tice them*. I am verily persuaded, however, that 
he has been deceived by the representation of 
others, and that he entirely mistakes the opinions 
of those writers. 



After carefally reviewing all that Dr. Boxvden 
has said on the rise and progress of Prelacy, I only 
think it necessary to offer and illustrate a single 
additional remark. It is this. That the indiscri^ 
minate application of the titles Bishop and Preshij" 
terj during the first and second^ and occasionally, as 
Dr. B. himself acknowledges, in the ^/^ir<^ century, 
furnishes, in my view, a most powerful argument 
in support of ministerial parity, and that in a point 
of light which I have not hidierto stated. The use 
of terms is to express distinct ideas. The use of 
oficial titles is to express in single terms official 
rank and powers. Now it is conceded by Dr. Bow^ 
den^ and by Episcopalians generally, that the titles 
Bishop and Presbyter were applied indiscriminate- 
ly, in the days of the Apostles, to designate the 
same order of clergy ; and that both are niost 
frequently applied, in the New Testament, to 
what they call the second order ^ or the Pastors 
of single Churches. They contend that the Apos- 
ties themselves were, strictly speaking, the Pre- 
lates of the apostolic Church ; and th;\t the title of 
Bishop was, in fact, then applied precisely as the 

* It is really not a little extraordinary that Dr. BoTvden, af- 
ter all his promises to the contrary, should so frequently be 
guilty of this conduct. 



412 LETTER X. 

Presbyterians now apply it, to every minister of the 
gospel who had a pastoral charge. This they al^ 
explicitly grant. But they insist that, in process of 
time, as the Apostles died, the title of Apostle vf^s 
laid aside, and that of Bishop began to take its 
place, and to be restricted to an order of clergy su- 
perior to Pastors, and succeeding to the apostolic 
pre-eminence. But does not all this carry impro- 
bability on the very face of it ? Is it likely that 
the inspired Apostles, or men immediately taught 
by them, when the Churches, for more than half a 
century, had been accustomed to employ a certain 
title to designate a particular class of ecclesiastical 
officers, would have adopted that very tide to de- 
signate a totally different class, and that when all the 
riches of language were open to their selection ? Can 
it be supposed, above all, that this would have been 
done in a case in which, if we believe our Episco- 
pal brethren, the distinction of orders has always 
been essential to the very being of the Church ? It 
cannot be supposed. Had their object been to 
produce confusion of ideas, and perpetual inconve- 
nience in the expression of them, they could scarce- 
ly have adopted a more direct method to attain 
their end. 

But, on the other hand, supposing Prelacy not to 
have been an apostolic institution, but to have been 
brought in by human ambition, and that in a gra^ 
dual and almost insensible manner, as we contend ; 
then nothing is more natural than this indiscrimi- 
nate use of official tides in early times. The m ost 



Rise and Progress of Prelacy. 413 

effectual way to disguise a nexv ojffice^ and to prevent 
the mass of the people from suspecting it of either 
encroachment or innovation, was to give it an old 
name. When, therefore, one of the Pastors, in a 
city or district, began to assume pre-eminent ho- 
nours and powers over his colleagues, instead of 
taking some new and high-sounding title, it was an 
obvious dictate of policy to content himself with a 
title which was common to his brethren. This 
policy was accordingly adopted. The plain title of 
Bishopy which was before given to all Pastors, and 
to which the people had been long accustomed, was 
still the only one which the aspiring individual ven- 
tured to employ. But it obviously would not have 
served the purpose either of convenience or ambi- 
tion to continue this community of title when a new 
order had arisen in the Church. Some alteration 
of ecclesiastical language was necessary for the 
sake of being understood ; and it was equally ne- 
cessary that the alteration should be such as not to 
alarm or offend. The consequence was, that the 
ordinary Pastors gradually dropped the tide of Bi- 
shop^ leaving it to be the appropriate title of those 
who had succeeded in raising themselves above the 
rest, and consenting to be called Presbyters or El^ 
ders only. 

When, therefore, our Episcopal brethren grant, 
as they all do, that the titles of Bishop and Presby^ 
ter^ in the days of the Apostles, were interchange- 
ably applied to the same class of officers, and those 
ordinary Pastors of the Church ; when they grant, 
2 M 2 



414 LETTER IX. 

as they also universally do, that xht former of these 
titles was gradually disused by ordinary Pastors 
and appropriated to Prelates ; and when they fur- 
ther concede, as they do with one voice, that the 
process of dropping this title on the part of the for- 
mer, and appropriating it on the part of the latter, 
took up a period oi more than a hundred years after 
the death of the Apostles; — I think no candid man 
can hesitate to conclude, that the necessity of this 
change in ecclesiastical titles, arose from the intrO" 
duction of an order of officers before unknown in the 
Church. 

What confirms this reasoning is, that we certain- 
ly know facts of a similar kind to have taken place 
very early. Dr. Bowden himself asserts that al- 
though Metropolitans existed, in fact, in the second 
century, yet that the use of this distinctive title, 
%vas but little known before the council of Nice^ m 
tht fourth century. It is certain that the title of 
Fope was frequently applied to Pastors in general, 
as early as the third century. We find Cyprian re- 
peatedly called by this title, in the Epistles address- 
ed to him. It was not until a considerable time 
afterwards, that the Roman Pontiff succeeded in 
appropriating to himself the title of the Pope^ by 
way of eminence. These examples are exactly in 
|)oint. A policy which we know to have been 
•adopted in other cases, we have every reason to 
believe was adopted in that under consideration. 
In short, our doctrine concerning the rise and pro- 
gress of Prelacy is not only, in itself, natural and 



Rise and Progress of Prelacy • 415 

probable; but it is so remarkably confirmed by 
early history, and especially by a variety of minute 
facts incidentally recorded, that my only surprise is, 
how any candid mind can withstand the evidence 
in its favour. 



( 416 ) 

LETTER X. 

Miscellaneous Remarks — Conclusion^ 



CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, 

1 HAVE now nearly completed my review of 5uch 
parts of Dr. BowderU^ volumes, and of Mr. How^s 
pamphlet, as appear to me worthy of notice. I 
have, indeed, passed over many passages in both, 
which might justly have been made the objects of 
severe criticism ; but which I considered as either 
of too little importance to demand animadversion, 
or so obviously erroneous, as to leave no unpreju- 
diced reader of the least discernment in danger of 
being led astray by them. It only remains that I 
make a few miscellaneous remarks, and then close 
a controversy which I unfeignedly regret that there 
should ever have been a necessity of beginning. 

It was my intention to add another Letter on the 
Concessions of Episcopalians^ for the purpose of 
vindicating and establishing what I had before ad- 
vanced under this head^ ; and also of presenting a 

* Dr. Boviden has made an insinuation with regard to one 
of the Episcopal concessions cited in my work, of which it is 
proper to take notice. He says lie has examined Reivers De- 
fence of hia Apology i and cannot find the passage which I pro- 



Conduaion. 417 

number of additional concessions from the works 
of eminent Episcopal writers. To fulfil the latter 
purpose, I had made a large collection of extracts 
from the works of Bishop Jezvel^ Bishop Andrews^ 
Bishop Morion^ Bishop Hall^ Bishop Taylor^ Bi- 
shop Buniet^ Bishop Warburton^ Dr. Jortin^ and 
several other Prelates and Divines, all containing 
sentiments very different from those of Dr. ^c^rt'- 
den and Mr. How^ and making concessions of the 
most decisive kind. But having already drawn 
out this work to a length greatly beyond my origi- 
nal design, I am constrained to suppress the pro- 
posed letter, and to content myself with the Epis- 
copal concessions already laid before the public. 

But really, independent of the fear of trespassing 
on the patience of my readers, there is little use in 
collecting testimony for such opponents as Dr. 
Boxvden and Mr. How. However abundant and 
pointed it may be, they appear to find no difficulty 

fess to quote from that work, in my seventh Letter. He 
therefore infers that I have either taken the quotation at se- 
cond hand, on the authority of some person who has blunder- 
ed in the business ; or that my references are to a different 
edition from that which he has consulted. I can assure this 
learned professor, who has, it must be confessed, much reason 
to plume himself on the fairness and accuracy of his quota- 
tions, that I possess a copy of the work from which my cita- 
tion was made ; that my edition is, like that which he pro- 
fesses to have consulted with so much care, (a folio, printed 
in 1570,) and tliat I am ready, whenever he will please to 
favour me with a visit, to show him the very words which I 
have quoted, in the very page referred to as containing- 
them. 



418 LETTER X. 

in persuading themselves that it is of no value. 
The unceremonious manner in which Dn B. re- 
jects testimony is amusing. The testimony of 
Archbishop Grindal is set aside on the ground of 
his being *^ somewhat fanatically inclined," and 
" lax in his discipline." The testimony ot Wickliffe^ 
on the ground of his being supposed to have em- 
braced error as to other points. The testimony of 
Dr. Raignolds is rejected, because, though a regu- 
lar member of the Church of England^ he was a 
puritan at heart. The testimony of Archbishop 
Usher is pronounced to consist only in a scholastic 
distinction^ which dull Presbyterians have not per- 
ceived ; '' the difference between him and other 
" Episcopalians being only verbal*^ That of Bi- 
shop Stillingfieet^ upon the ground of the immaturi- 
ty of a juvenile mind, the visionary speculations of 
which were corrected by age. That of Archbishop 
Tillotson^ because he was a " a very moderate 
churchman" ^' a sort of neutral man," and with- 
al " suspected of Arianism and Universalism." 
That of Bishop Croft^ because his name is so ob- 
scure that not one of the Episcopal clergy of this 
city ever heard of him before ; and because he was 
'^ a man of very comprehensive principles, and an 
" enemy of all creeds and subscriptions." That of 
Mosheim^ because " he had the system of his own 
Church to maintain^." But when testimony is 

* If the testimony of Moshehn is to be rejected on this 
ground, then the testimony of all the Episcopalians quoted 
by Dr. B. himself, must be set aside on the same ground* 



Conclusion. 419 

adduced which cannot be set aside by any such fri- 
volc :s pretext, it is boldly pronounced " worth- 
less," '' of no value," perfectly " destitute of force," 
&c. Nothing can be drawn from testimony. It is 
waste of time and labour to collect it. 

Mr. Hg%v*s mode of treating the concessions of 
Episcopalians, is still more ludicrous. He com- 
plains that I have produced extracts only from *' be- 
tween Thirty 2iT\dfoj'ty writers;" pronounces this a 
number too trifling to be regarded as of any weight ; 
and expresses 2i suspicion Ahdii ht cou\(\ present a 
much larger list of Presbyterian writers who have 
opposed the doctrines of their own Church. — In 
answer to this plea, I will only say, that when Mr. 
Hoxv shall present me with an equally long list of 
standard Presbyterian writers, who are praised, 

Will he agree to this ? Besides, I thought Dr. Boii^dcn had 
assured us that the Lutheran church, is Episcopal ; and yet 
Dr. Mosheim^s testimony against Episcopacy is to be reject- 
ed, because he had, " the system of his own church to main- 
tain!" The truth is, the testimony of Moshei^ti, and of 
other Lutheran divines on this subject is peculiarly weigh- 
ty: for while they have in their church a sort of qualified 
Episcopacy; and while they have as strong a temptation as 
other churches to place their constitution on the footing of 
divine right ; they unanimously grant wow, what they have 
unanimously granted since the days of Luther, that Prelacy 
is not a divine or apostolic institution ; that it was introduced 
after the days of the Apostles ; and that it rests on the 
ground of human expediency alone. Tliis fact will weigh 
more, with every impartial inquirer, than all that the collect- 
ed learning and zeal of the divines of the church of England 
have ever advanced in favour of Episcopacy, because " they 
l^ave the system of their own church to maintain." 



420 LETTER X. 

quoted, studied, and made thQ guides of theological 
students, and who at the same time oppose our 
fundamental doctrines, I shall then acknowledge 
that those doctrines ar6 not the doctrines of the 
Presbyterian Church. 

Were there time to go over in detail the extracts 
from Episcopal writers which I have presented as 
concessions^ it would be easy to show that almost 
all the glosses of Dr. Bowden and Mr. How are 
either irrelevant or worse. But such a process 
would be an unreasonable trespass on your patience. 
I have already given a specimen of the mode of 
answering adopted by the former of these gentlemen, 
in the case of Bishop Jewel. The latter is no less 
vulnerable in a variety of instances. He tells us, 
for example, (p. 56.) that Archbishop Usher pro- 
nounces Presbyterian ordination to be schismaticaly 
in all cases excepting that of necessity alone. This 
is not true. Usher says neither this^ nor any thing 
like it. He says, " the ordinations made by such 
" Presbyters as have severed themselves from those 
'^ Bishops unto whom they had sworn canonical obe^ 
" dience^ cannot possibly by me be excused from 
*^ hiiinQ schismatical ;^^ immediately after which he 
goes on to say, that he '' loves and honours" the 
Presbyterian Churches of Holland and France, as 
'^ true members of the Church universal ;" and 
that he would with pleasure receive the sacrament 
from the hands of the ministers in either.* 

* yudgmentofthelate Archbishop of Ar mag h* 1107-^123. 



Conclusion^ 4r21 

My argument drawn from the Practical influ* 
ence of Prelacy^ has, as I fully expected, both em- 
barrassed and offended my opponents. But, after 
all their impatience and irritation under it, and all 
their cavils against it, I still think it a sound and ir- 
resistible argument. If the Episcopal Church, be 
the only true Church, the only denomination of 
professing Christians who are " in covenant with 
God," then the demand that they should exhibit 
more of the distinguishing character of God's co- 
venant people, viz. universal holiness^ is surely a 
reasonable demand. In truth, their mode of re- 
plying to this demand amounts to a surrender of 
the argument. With their subterfuge respecting 
the ^akers^ I have already shown that we have no- 
thing to do. 

Dr. Bowden complains that, in speaking of the 
practical injluence of Prelacy^ I have expressed my- 
self in terms much too severe concerning Prelates 
and their system. He complains especially of the 
following passage : " If we examine the history 
" of any Episcopal Church on earth, we shall find 
" it exhibiting, to say the least, as large a share of 
" heresy, contention, and schism, as any which 
*•' bears the Presbyterian form : and, what is more, 
*' we shall ever find the Prelates themselves quite 
" as forxvard as any others in scenes of violence 
" and outrage." He asserts that " these charges 
" could not have proceeded from a proper mo- 
" tive ;" and that, '' if they were even well-found- 
" ed, they ought not to have been advanced." On 
2 N 



422 LETTER X. 

what ground Dr. Bowden should have taken so 
much offence ^t this passage, it is not easy to see. 
Was ic going either an indecent or an unreason- 
able length, when I was fairly called to speak on 
the subject, to say, that Prelacy has been proved 
to be quite as favourable to heresy, contention, and 
schism, as Presbyterianism ; and Prelates as charge- 
able with violence and outrage as Presbyters ? If 
this was indecent, then what shall be said of this 
gentleman himself, who has asserted that every 
charge which I hav^e brought against Prelacy " may 
be retorted upon Presbytery in a tenfold degree ?" 
If my motives were bad for merely alleging that 
Presbyterians stand on as good ground, with re- 
gard to the practical influence of their system, as 
Episcopalians do ; what must have been the mo- 
tives of Dr. B. in alleging that the former are tert' 
fold worse than the latter ? What must have been 
his motives in expressing himself frequently in 
much more severe and indelicate terms of Presby- 
terians and Presbytery ? But the cases are, in his 
estimation, essentially different. The abuse of 
Presbyterians is no crime. That this must be his 
opinion is evident from the reproachful charges 
which he unreservedly heaps upon them, in those 
very parts of his work in which he censures me 
for my unexceptionable comparison. 

Dr. Bovjden still insists that there is peculiar 
efficacy in the Episcopal form of government in se- 
curing the unity of the Church ; and undertakes to 
give a contrasted view of Presbyterian and Episco- 



Conclusion. 4.23 

pal Churches with respect to this point. I utterly 
deny the correctness of his alleged facts on this sub- 
ject ; and have no fear in repeating my assertion, that 
the history of any number of Episcopal Churches 
exhibits quite as large a share of heresy, contention, 
and schism, as the history of any corresponding 
number of Presbyterian Churches. I am perfectly 
willing to go for an example to the Church oi Eng- 
land^ or to any part of the world, where Prelacy 
has ever existed ; and am sure that no impartial 
student of ecclesiastical history will be of a different 
opinion. What does Dr. Bozvden mean by unity^ 
as applied to a Church ? Does he mean unity of 
spirit^ or unity of name ? If the latter, then no 
one who understands Christianity can respect or va- 
lue it : if the former, then it may be shown, that 
the Church of England^ (which probably Dr. B« 
would consider as the most favourable specimen 
the world has ever seen,) is, and has long been, as 
much a stranger to it, as any of her neighbours. 
If all manner of discordant sentiment; if every 
grade of heresy, from that of Arminius^ to the 
cold, gloomy, semi-deistical scheme of Socinus ; 
if the constant public manifestation of this discor- 
dance, and of these contending heresies; and that 
not only among the people, and the inferior clergy, 
but also among the Prelates themselves; if en> 
bracing multitudes of clergy who disbelieve \it,x Arti* 
f:/^^,who dislike her i/7wr§^t/, and who yet have con- 
sciences which admit of their canonically swearing 
to the belief and support of both ; — if these things 



*24 LETTER x:, 

constitute unity ^ then indeed she may be said to 
possess it But this is a kind of unity of which 
the Apostles knew nothing, and which, if they were 
now on earth, they would pronounce of no value. 
There is unspeakably more real unity among all the 
different portions of Presbyterians in the United 
States^ though called by different names, than exists, 
or has for near 200 years existed, in the Church of 
England^ though nominally one. They have the 
same confession of Faith, the same mode of wor- 
^hip, the same form of church government, and 
are, in all important points, so entirely united, that 
many of their best members often wonder and la- 
ment, that they are not one in name as well as in 
reality* 

With respect to the doctrine of Uninterrupted 
Succession^ I have little to add to v/hat is contain- 
ed in my former Letters. Dr. Bowden is indeed 
right in suspecting that I lay no great stress on this 
doctrine, as he understands and states it. That 
there always has been, since the days of Christ, 
and that there always rvill be to the end of the 
world, a true Church, and a true and valid gospel 
ministry, in that Church, I firmly believe. But as 
lo the historical proof i\\?it this succession in the mi- 
nistry has never been interrupted^ by any event 
which might be called an irregtdar or uncanonical 
ordination^ I neither care for it, nor believe in it. 
The promise of the Saviour that neither the church 
nor her ministry shall ever become extinct, is 



Conclusion* 4^5 

enough to satisfy me. That the succession in 
this ministry will be kept up in the same exact 
77ianner in every age, I consider neither Scripture 
nor common sense as requiring me to believe. 
There is no Presbyterian who contends more zeal- 
ously for a strict adherence to ecclesiastical rules 
than I am disposed to do ; nor one who deems it 
of more importance that we set our faces against 
every kind of spurious investiture, and that we re- 
tain the scriptural method of ordination by the lay" 
ing on of the hands of the Presbytery ; yet I have 
no hesitation in saying, that if it v/ere to be dis- 
covered, that, about txvo hiiudred or five hundred 
years ago, the regular succession of our ordinations 
had been really interrupted by some ecclesiastical 
oversight or disorder, I should not consider it as 
in the least degree affecting either the legitimacy 
of our present ministry, or the validity of our pre*" 
sent ordinances. 

The learned and acute Episcopal divine, ChiU 
Ungworth^ if I understand him, takes the same 
ground, and views the subject in the same light. 
Though he is a warm advocate for the apostolical 
institution of Prelacy ; yet he evidently considers 
the doctrine of uninterrupted succession, and es- 
pecially the idea of attaching fundamental impor- 
tance to it, as a Popish error; and the historic 
proof oi ihQ fact as equally ridiculous and impossi- 
ble*. 

* See his Safe Way of Salvation, Part i. Chapters 2. & 6. 



486 - LETTER X. 

Dr. Bowden^ho\\t\tY^ objects that, even on Pres- 
byterian principles, the Episcopal succession is bet- 
ter than ours ; or rather that ours is utterly invalid, 
because, at the sera of the Reformation, the Pres- 
byters, in different parts of Europe^ who first began 
to ordain, had not the ordaining power specifically 
or professedly imparted to them by the Bishops who 
ordained them ; so that they did not even stand on 
equal ground with modern Presbyterian ministers, 
on whom in their ordination, the ordaining power 
is formally bestowed. But this objection has no 
force. The Popish doctrine, " that it is the 
intention of the administrator which constitutes 
the validity of an ecclesiastical ordinance," is dis- 
carded by all Protestants. And as the first Pres- 
byters who undertook to ordain, after emerging 
from the darkness of Popery, were regularly in- 
vested with the power of preaching the gospel, and 
administering sacraments, all Presbyterians consi- 
der the right to ordain as necessarily included in 
those powers, whether the fact be mentioned, or 
even thought of at the time of ordination or not. 

Dr. Bowden^ toward the close of his last letter, 
expresses much irritated feeling at my having re- 
presented clerical imparity as a " Popish doctrine.'' 
He demands, in a tone to which I forbear to give a 
name, whether I " know what Popery is ?" In the 
next page he calls upon me to '^ lay my hand upon 
" my heart, and in the fear of God to say, whether 
•^ I do not think that I have most grossly libelled 



Conclusion. 427 

^^ the whole Episcopal Church throughout the 
*' world ;" and adds, that '^ something explicit upon 
this point will be expected from me." This good 
gentleman shall have " something explicit." Let 
me assure him, then, that, after the most serious 
and conscientious review of all that I have written, 
I am so far from thinking that I have ^^ libelled" 
the Episcopal Church in representing Prelacy as a 
" Fopish doctrine," that all my inquiries convince 
me, more than ever, of the justness of my repre- 
sentation, and embolden me to repeat and urge it 
with new confidence. In answer to Dr. Bocvden^s 
question, what is Popery ? I answer. Popery^ 
strictly speaking, as was remarked in a former Let- 
ter, is the ecclesiastical supremacy usurped by the 
Bishop of Rome* But, more generally speaking, it 
implies that system of corruption^ both in doctrine, 
government, and practice, which characterizes, 
and has, for nearly 1500 years, characterized the 
Romish or Latin Church. Hence Transubstantiu" 
tion^ Purgatory^ Auricular Confession^ the worship 
of Images^ the invocation of Saints^ and the adora- 
tion of the Cross^ are all spoken of by the most ac- 
curate writers, as Popish errors ; although most of 
them had crept into the Church, long before the 
period v/hich Dr. Boxvden assigns for the rise of 
the Papal usurpation ; and although none of them, 
excepting perhaps the first, could ever be traced to 
the Roman Pontiff himself as their immediate 
author. 

I say then, again, that, in this sense, clerical im- 



428 LETTER X, 

parity is a " Popish error," nearly coeval in its rise 
with the commencement of the Papacy; origina- 
ting from the same source ; and tending, in a de- 
gree, to the same mischief. And though I would 
by no means place the former of these errors on a 
par with the latter ; nor venture to pronounce the 
one, as I do the other, an antuchristian abuse, be- 
ing fully persuaded that many of the greatest and 
best men that ever lived have been friends of Pre- 
lacy; yet all my inquiries have more and more 
confirmed me in the persuasion, that it is a real 
and a mischievous defar re from apostolic sim- 
plicity, and that it first arose from the same princi- 
ple of clerical ambition which gave rise to the Pa- 
pacy. I hope this is ^^ explicit" enough. 

Nor is this all. When I look over the charges 
and reasonings urged by the Popish writers, against 
the Waldenses and Albigenses^ as they are preserved 
and exhibited in Perrin's history of those illustrious 
witnesses for the truth ; when I read the language 
used by the Popish persecutors of the English Re- 
formers, as it is recorded in different parts of Fox*s 
Acts and Monuments; when I examine the 
cavils and objections made by Harding^ Saun^ 
ders^ Stapleton^ Campian^ and other zealous Catho- 
lics, against the Church of England ; and when I 
look into the writings which ChilUngxvorth^ in his 
Safe -way of Salvation^ examines and refutes, I 
couid almost fancy myself listening to the pleas of 
some high-toned Episcopalians in the United States 
against their Presbyterian neighbours. Could you 



Conclusion. 429 

make it convenient to examine those writings for 
yourselves, you vi^ould find in them so large a por- 
tion of the same reasonings, and the same language, 
which are now found in certain Episcopal writers ; 
so much of the same cry, in exactly or nearly the 
same words, about the Church I the true Church I 
the Apostolic Church! so much of the same 
kind of charges, respecting schism^ departure from 
the covenanted way of salvation^ loss of the ApostO" 
lie succession^ and having no true priesthood^ or va* 
lid ordinances^ as would fill you with astonishment, 
if not with emotions of a more unfavourable nature. 
Nor would your astonishment be at all diminished 
by finding, as you would find, that the friends of 
the Church of England, in defending themselves 
and their cause against the writers in question, re- 
sorted, in a multitude of instances, to the very 
same scriptural authorities, and the very same ar- 
guments, which Presbyterians employ against the 
high-toned Prelatists of the present day !— Reflect 
seriously on these facts, and then ask yourselves, 
whether Dr. Bowden has any just reason to com- 
plain of me for speaking of an affinity between his 
claims and those of Popery ? I have, indeed, re- 
peatedly suggested the idea of such an affinity, 
and distinctly meant to do so. I have done it, how- 
ever, without passion, and without any wish to 
give unnecessary pain ; but with a calm, deliberate, 
and firm conviction, that the suggestion was well- 
founded. And I can assure the gentlemen who 
have written so much and so resentfully for the 



4f30 LETTER X. 

purpose of removing it, that their publications are 
far, very far, from having diminished the force of 
this conviction. 

I have now, my Brethren, completed my exami- 
nation of such parts of Dr. Bowden^s and Mr. Hoxv*s 
Letters as I deem worthy of notice. It was my 
intention, after the example of the former of these 
gendemen, to collect and present in one view, a 
catalogue of the " misrepresentations," '' unfound- 
ed assertions," " mistakes," and " omissions," with 
which their pages abound. But finding these " mis- 
representations," &c. to be so numerous^ that a mere 
list of them, without comment, would fill another 
long letter; and many of them oi so disreputable diW^ 
offensive a character as not to be contemplated, 
even by opponents, without much commisseration 
for their authors ; I have determined to spare my- 
self the pain of writing, and you of reading such a 
Letter; and here to take a final leave of the sub- 
ject. I engaged in this controversy, without the 
least expectation of convincing Episcopalians, or of 
bringing over to my own opinion an individual of 
that communion ; but solely for the purpose of sa- 
tisf) ing and confirming Presbyterians. My object, 
I have the pleasure to know, is attained ; and per- 
ceiving no further advantage in prolonging the con- 
troversy, I now lay down the pen ; nor can I fore- 
see any event that will ever tempt me to resume it 
on this subject. 

I take for granted that all the gentlemen who 



Conclusioru 431 

have already appeared as my opponents, will again 
come before the public in reply to these Letters ; 
and will endeavour to persuade their readers that I 
have again misrepresented them and their cause, 
and again laid myself open to the heaviest charges 
and the severest reproach. All this and more I 
deliberately expect from gentlemen who have gene- 
rally manifested a wish to have the last word. 
Should my expectation be realized, it will give me 
no uneasiness ; nor shall I ever, (according to my 
present views,) take the least public notice of any 
thing that they may say. If, indeed, I should here- 
after discover any important errors in the foregoing 
pages, {trivial ones, which do not affect the main 
question, will probably be discovered and pointed 
out,) I shall consider it as a duty which I owe to 
you to correct them. But with the controversy, as 
such, it is my firm resolution to have nothing more 
to do. This resolution is formed and expressed, 
not out of any disrespect to the gentlemen in ques- 
tion ; but from a deliberate conviction that enough 
has been said on the Presbyterian side of the argu- 
ment; and that my time and pen may be hereafter 
devoted to objects more agreeable to myself, and 
more useful to others. 

That the high-toned class of our Episcopal breth- 
ren will, in any respect, alter their tone, either of 
speaking or writing, I have no expectation i nor 
have I the least anxiety that they should. Having 
provided the antidote, I am perfectly indifferent 
how often or how long the poison may be dissemi- 



432 LETTER X. 

nated. Let them hereafter sing the praises of their 
truly primitive and apostolic Church as loudly and 
as confidently as they please. Let them arrogate 
to themselves the honour of having the only true 
priesthood^ and the only valid ordinances in the 
land. Let them embrace every occasion of pro- 
nouncing that we^ as Presbyterians, are rebels and 
schismatics^ and out of the covenanted way of salva- 
tion. I trust, my brethren, that not an individual 
among us has any feelings which are capable of be- 
ing wounded by such language. Were we inhabi- 
tants of South-Britain^ where all the smiles of go- 
vernment, and all the treasures of the nation, not 
only give confidence to language of this kind, but 
also impart to it no small degree of efficacy, we 
might feel it as a mortifying grievance. But in 
this country, where governmental preferences 
among religious denominations are unknown, and 
where numbers as well as truth^ are, by a great pre- 
ponderance, on the side of Presbyterians, we may 
listen to the most obtrusive promulgation of such 
claims, with perfect indifference, or, at the utmost, 
with a smile. 

That it is our earnest desire to live in peace and 
harmony with our brethren of the Episcopal church, 
you can all bear witness. For them, I can truly 
say, that I entertain a high respect ; and am happy 
to number individuals of that communion among 
my most valued friends. I know, also, that many 
of that denomination entirely disapprove, and deep- 
ly lament, the offensive writings of their own cler 



Conclusiaiu 433 

gy, which ha\*e produced this controversy. Were 
I capable of applying to such persons many of the 
remarks which I have been compelled to apply, in 
the foregoing pages, to Dr. Boxvden and Mr. Sow^ 
I should deem myself one of the most uncandid 
4md unjust of men. And, I will add, that it would 
give me much pain, if any thing in this, or my 
preceding volume, should be considered as point* 
mg at Episcopalians of that liberal class. Differences 
of opinion there are, and will be, between us ; but if 
these differences are maintained on both sides with 
that spirit which the Holy Ghost teacheth^ they will 
neither foster the wrath ofman^ nor interfere with 
real christian unity. Continue, then, I intreat you, to 
cherish on your part a spirit of amity and conciliation 
whatever reception it may meet with. Be always 
ready to exhibit your share, and more than your 
share, of this temper. And then, whatever may be 
the result, it will turn to you for a testimony^ Re- 
member that the haughty language, or the unscriptu- 
ral claims of the most uncharitable of our Episcopal 
brethren, cannot possibly injure us; but that we 
shall always injure ourselves exactly in proportion 
as we lose sight of that holy spirit which adorned 
and united the disciples of Christ in the days of 
apostolic purity, and which compelled even their 
enemies to exclaim, " Behold how these Chris- 
" tians love one another !'' 

Whether your Pastors are lawful ministers, and 
the ordinances which they dispense kgitimate or* 
dinances, are questions which, happily, it is not for 
2 O 



434 LETTER X. 



Dr. Boxuden and Mr. How to decide. There is a 
day approaching when they will be decided before 
a higher Tribunal, and with consequences more in- 
teresting than language can express. Happy will it 
be for us if, in that day, we shall all be found mem- 
bers of that holy Church, which the divine Redeem- 
er hath purchased with his blood, and adorned with 
his Spirit ! Happy will it be for your ministers, if 
they shall be found, in that day, to have preached 
not themselves^ but Christ Jesus the Lord, and them- 
selves your servants for Jesus* sake / And happy 
-will it be for you, my brethren, if it shall then ap- 
pear that you have not rested in rites and forms ; 
but that you have received the truth in the love of 
it ; that Christ has been formed in you the hope of 
glory ; and that you belong to that chosen genera- 
tion^ that royal priesthood, that holy nation, that 
peculiar people, who shall for ever show forth the 
praises of Him who hath called them out of dark- 
ness into his marvellous light I That this blessed- 
ness may be shared by you, and equally by them 
also, whom, in this controversy, we have been cal- 
led to oppose, is the unfeigned prayer of, 

My Christian Brethren, 

Your affectionate Servant in the Gospel, 

SAMUEL MILLER. 



17 82 







o V 




O K o ' -0 

V - t • < 




. 7 ♦ A 


















' . . • * ,0^ o, 'o . . • / 






c°\^ 








%_ 



A^ ^ « a 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

^^-;^^,^ PreservationTechnologies 

^ ^ , A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESEHVATIOf 







•^^o^ 



1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



. V" .o" o ^ ^ 





0° ♦V/7:?5iJ. ^ .^* 










^^-V^. 






' . . • . W ^ A > . « . <«. 



rx^"..^", •'b 



•*U.o< 















^o-n*^. 




CL^°<*> 




014 674 879 A 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 557 536 



